Talk:Islamic terrorism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

I'm back from the block

I won't hold a grudge about being blocked for 3rr, because I deserved it. However, lemme explain simply why this page must be moved.

The current reason that this page is called Islamist terrorism, is because it is percieved as being more accurate. However, this is a subjective value judgement because which term is correct is contentious! Therefore, because there is subjective debate over which one is correct, it only makes sense to create a page for the one more commonly used. Naming the page Islamist terrorism is a value judgement on a subjective issue!! See what I mean? Any opposition to what I've said here? Make sure to explain your reasoning rather than just disagree. Thank you!--Urthogie 18:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

You write "Therefore, because there is subjective debate over which one is correct, it only makes sense to create a page for the one more commonly used." An encyclopedia is not a popularity contest. Neither term is "correct" in any absolute sense, but if a non-Muslim is going to apply a label to a tiny criminal minority of Muslims, it only makes sense to avoid using a term which is offensive to all followers of Islam and implies that the actions of this minority are somehow a part of mainstream Islamic beliefs. Otherwise, it's just a slur. --Lee Hunter 18:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Offending people is not a basis for an article name. Please point to any wikipedia policy which allows this. I don't think its a slur. Neither does my muslim friend luke. So your generalization of all muslims was false. Thanks, --Urthogie 18:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok all Muslims except your friend Luke. Or we can say most Muslims. The most important reason, however, for keeping "Islamist" is that it is simply far more accurate. There is no such thing as "Islamic terrorism" because terrorism is never Islamic. In the same way, there is no such thing as "Christian murder" because murder is never Christian. On the other hand, there is (perhaps arguably) an "Islamist terrorism" as there can be murder committed by nominal Christians.--Lee Hunter 19:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The terrorists disagree with you. They'd say theyre being good muslims, and others are not. You're making a value judgement(one that I agree with, but I cannot enforce as it is biased). Also, please try to maintain objectivity and don't make baseless generalizations that begin with "All muslims", as it really takes away from your status as an objective editor that i respect.--Urthogie 20:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm still awaiting a reply...this seems indisputable logically.--Urthogie 08:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it matters very much what a tiny group of criminials think. Certainly they seem to consider themselves good Muslims but their misplaced self-esteem is only one factor. Add that to sloppy writing in the media and it still doesn't amount to much. --Lee Hunter 14:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is indeed not a popularity contest but conventional usage deserves respect unless there is some unequivocal reason not to use it (i.e., a taxonomic label). In this vein, I actually agree to a large extent with Urth and would support the move. "There is no such thing as 'Islamic terrorism' because terrorism is never Islamic" is a tautology I'm afraid. If, as I assume, you mean that terrorism vitiates Qur'anic teaching, OK, but that is a value judgement. The entire Near East, North Africa, and Spain were once conquered in the name proselytizing Islam. Would you call that an Islamic or an Islamist movement? As recently as 1992 Saudi Arabia carried out an execution for apostacy. Again, Islamic or Islamist? The fact is that the "tiny group of criminials" (and I'd suggest decent-sized group of their sympathizers and state sponsors) identify as Muslim and interpret Islam to justify their actions. This isn't a fact that can be overcome with semantics. Marskell 14:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

But we're talking about terrorism not wars or criminal justice. There is certainly an Islamic law and there is an interpretation of Jihad as "Islamic conquest" but I'm not sure that we should apply "Islamic" to every action carried out by Muslims, especially when we're talking about a few tiny, mostly estranged, subgroups who are acting for a variety of reasons (mostly nationalist). Combatants in many conflicts like to cast their struggle in religious terms. --Lee Hunter 17:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you think they have misplaced self-esteem. I agree with you, but we must not be biased in making this article. Also, this move would follow with wikipedia's guidelines for article naming because: 1. The terrorists more often refer to themselves as Islamic terrorists and 2. The mainstream press refers to them more often as Islamic terrorists. Lee: We're not arguing against your stance on the issue of terrorism being allowed by Muslims, and we're not looking for a debate of ideas. We're simply showing that wikipedia policy and rational reasoning makes clear that that should be the name of the article-- not because of anything to do with the ideas of hand-- but wikipedia policy.--Urthogie 15:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I must have missed the Osama broadcast where he said "I am an Islamic terrorist". Could you provide a reference? ;) Palmiro | Talk 16:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

He wouldn't use the word terrorist, but he believes the september 11th attacks to not be some faction of islam, but the actual purpose of Islam itself. Islamist is a word used around 5 times as less, and often used by right wingers such as that frontpagemag(I doubt theyre worried about offending any muslims)--Urthogie 16:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

From his fatwa:

"All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on Allah, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries."

Individual duty for jihad..doesn't seem political...seems kinda like a religious response to infadels. And trust me, I know Islam is peaceful, but theres no need to censor a letter for subjective reasons and value judgements.--Urthogie 16:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

And once again, even if you think I'm wrong about that being religious and not political, my main point is still indisputable-- value judgements are inherent in the naming of this article.--Urthogie 16:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course there's the 2004 Osama bin Laden video. He certainly maintains he's a Muslim; I suppose some other Muslims agree, and some disagree. He doesn't say he's a terrorist, because he maintains his actions aren't terrorism. Rather than have some vague pronouncement like, "Some say..." or "Others disagree...", I would prefer cited quotes from both sides. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you understand Tom, I'm not trying to prove my argument right, just highlight the subjectivity. Proving me wrong just shows I'm not a good arguer, which is irrelevant. The burden of proof that this is not a value judgement is on those who want to keep it here. Please supply a reason (that is not an opinion about whos a good muslim or good anything) that proves why it should be Islamist.--Urthogie 16:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, to complicate the matter further, allow me to point out that the meaning of Islamic terrorism isn't very clear. This article is clearly about terrorism carried out in the pursuit of Islamist goals, or by Islamist organisations (Hamas perhaps fits the second definition better than the first). What exactly would "Islamic terrorism" mean? Terrorism of an Islamic nature? Most Muslims would say that that is an oxymoron, that Islam prohibits terrorism and therefore there can be no such thing. Terrorism carried out by Muslims? OK, possibly, in which case we'd have to include the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, which seems overwhelmingly Muslim and uses plenty of Islamic symbolism, but isn't really part of what we're talking about, and groups like the Palestine Liberation Front and the Grey Wolves who haven't an Islamist bone in their bodies. The name we have is far more accurate, precise and unambiguous in addition to not offending large numbers of people as the other one would appear to. Palmiro | Talk 17:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok if I'm correct you're making two points heres: 1. it's more accurate and 2. it's less offensive. Simple answers. 1: Value judgement. 2: Value judgement and irrelevant No matter how hard you believe these things, or how much yoy play with words, they aren't scientifically provable beyond reasonable doubt. I could argue about how accurate it is-- but that's not the issue, its the fact that I, and the mainstream press, and other wikipedians disagree with you, that establishes it as a subjective. Now you can use all the logic you like in trying to attack such usage, but it wont make a difference-- its contentious, and you're making a value judgement in supporting the name of this article.--Urthogie 17:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite follow you. I have adduced arguments as to why one name is more accurate than the other. Of course this requires judgement, but it's hardly purely subjective. It is indeed objectively open to demonstration that one label for a phenomenon is more accurate than another. Palmiro | Talk 17:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Very well, ill explain why its subjective. Me, and none of the jews in my family find jewish terrorism offensive. There wasn't a big argument about christian terrorism. Why this big argument over making this fit reasonably in with the rest of the encyclopedia? Because, of value judgements. This is getting very stressful...

If the remark of mine that you are declaring to be a value judgement is the one about it being offensive, then forget about that. I'm rather more interested in the other points I made. Palmiro | Talk 14:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Does[1] mean nothing to you? MUSLIMS are using "islamic terrorism". The terms are interchangable. These muslims aren't so deranged as to INSULT THEMSELVES!!

I really don't like arguing about this, but I won't give up on it just because there's a large force of editors making subjective statements. Please, just show some wikikindness and try to relate to my point here!! I know you must be seeing it...somewhere?

--Urthogie 18:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

First, I wanted to say to Lee that I used the justice system and conquest examples to point out that we can't cherry-pick what is and is not Islamic by using (IMHO) a weasely, little used term for the sake of being unoffensive. "What is Islamic terrorism?" How about: terrorism carried out by self-identifying Muslims with Qur'anic sources as a putative justification. It's just an adjective ultimately, and I really fail to grasp this argument that it somehow breeds confusion. Further, who says "that Islam prohibits terrorism"? The concept of terrorism post-dates Islam by a millenium. The Qur'an prohibits murder, yes, ("if you kill one, you kill all" is a beautiful piece of moral wisdom) but allowing killing for those who "create disorder in the land" is a loophole big enough to drive a truck through. Jews are creating disorder in Palestine. Having Christian military forces in the land of Mecca is disorder in itself... Marskell 19:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism redirects here. As a point of logic, Urthogie is correct; there is no cold-bloodly rational reason or finely-honed distinction that justifies the Islamist in the name of this page. Yhis article is named as it is out of consideration for the sensibilities of editors and readers who might be offended. That's okay with me. It would be nice if that consideration were reciprocated, but even if it never is, I am content; sometimes actions speak louder than words. I do not support renaming this page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

While I understand the spirit of your point, naming pages on the basis of sensibility ahead of accuracy is censorship-lite. Marskell 19:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you oppose renaming, or do you not take a stance?--Urthogie 20:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

But the point is that "Islamist terrorism" is both more accurate and more sensitive whereas "Islamic terrorism" is merely more popular at the moment (along with some vague fretting about parallels to Christian terrorism and Jewish terrorism which doesn't really add anything to the question). --Lee Hunter 19:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

How is it more accurate when we don't even properly define it? "The term 'Islamism' has two established meanings..." Very next sentence: "Political scientists use the term Islamist in a number of ways..." Notice some confusion? Now take Islamic in an "intuitive dictionary" sense, say "of or relating to Islam or Muslims." Insofar as Islamic terrorists a) self-identify as Muslims and b) act with reference to the Qur'an in c) pursuit of supposed Muslim aggrandizement, how is Islamic an inaccurate term? Or at least how is it less accurate than a rather confused poli-sci term few English speakers conventionally use? Marskell 20:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, we claim that its more specific but it has just as many definitions, if not more, as Islamic.--Urthogie 20:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It's more accurate precisely because it is does have a specific narrow meaning relating to political Islam whereas "Islamic" relates to the religion as a whole. Yes "Islamist", like nearly any word, can be used in other ways, but that doesn't change the fact that Islamist helps to point the reader to a much narrower slice of the Muslim world than would "Islamic". If I say "Islamic law" I'm talking about law that guides the Muslim world. If I said "Islamist law" you'd know that I'm talking about something different, perhaps a subset of Islamic law or an interpretation of Islamic law according to the viewpoint of Islamists. --Lee Hunter 20:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you aware that one of the definitions of Islamist is "The religious faith, principles, or cause of Islam."? It overlaps completely, and naming the article Islamist just adds more possibilities. It creates gray areas. A gray area can't be objectively proven to be accurate. But you're still trying to do that. Lee: this argument could go on forever, with no solution-- you're essentially filibustering this by having us argue about your view of the word. It's semantics, opinions.--Urthogie 21:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Please reread what I just wrote. Words can have many meanings. This is a given. You claim that this is just "semantics, opinions". Semantics, yes (obviously), opinions, no. The fact that "Islamist" can possibly be used to refer to Islam as a whole is indeed playing a silly semantic game. You can't escape the fact that the PRIMARY and by far most common meaning of "Islamist" refers to political Islam. Hence it is therefore the more precise and more accurate word for this article. --Lee Hunter 22:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

cont'd

Not to be glib, but can you unpack "It (Islamist) is more accurate precisely because it is does have a specific narrow meaning..." Which is? Sorry, but I can't shake the idea that "Islamist" is an apologist, western academic invention that doesn't mean shit to the people who enact the behaviours this article describes. "Islamic" is appropriately deployable in the specific context here--and it has the advantage of being the word English speakers actually use to describe this form of terrorism. Marskell 22:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

From the American Heritage Dictionary "Is lam ism: 1. An Islamic revivalist movement, often characterized by moral conservatism, literalism, and the attempt to implement Islamic values in all spheres of life." and "is lam: 1. A monotheistic religion characterized by the acceptance of the doctrine of submission to God and to Muhammad as the chief and last prophet of God." Which of these two definitions is more pertinent to an article about terrorist activities? I can't see the point of using "Islamic" when we have a perfectly precise and accurate adjective. --Lee Hunter 01:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing about this so called revival movement in the article. Therefore, we're left with different defintions for different dictonaries. There's no consistency. Congratulations Lee, you've found a gray area that can be debated indefinitely. Islamist is a relatively new academic word, and it's unclearly defined. Dictionaries don't agree on it, so we can't use it.--Urthogie 08:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the def (my which is? was partly rhetorical). I'm going to re-state three things suggested in various ways:

• Our own writings underscore that a strict definition has not been achieved.
• It is little used and largely confined to the academy (can you grant that?).
• Finally, I'm suggesting that Islamism is a definition in search of a distinction. Every tenet I have seen propounded as fundamental to "Islamism" is essentially fundamental to "Islam" itself IMO. The idea that Islam would not be used as a political system, for instance, would have been inconceivable to the Prophet. Islam has been proselytizing from the beginning and the point has always been to implement "Islamic values in all spheres of life." And that's why I think my two initial examples are spot-on--again, we can't cherry-pick what does and does not have an Islamic base for the sake of sensibility. Marskell 08:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Little used? Nope. 4.6 million hits on Google. Sure it's not used as much as "Islamic" but that's because, once again, it has a narrower meaning. A specific meaning. Is it a more modern word? Probably. The idea of an Islamic government, has only really become popular in the last twenty-five years (after the revolution in Iran). Even Saudi Arabia, as a kingdom, is not truly an Islamic government (to the Islamists). I'm not cherry-picking anything. Read the Islamism article if you need more information. --Lee Hunter 14:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

400,000 of those search results come from wikipedia.[2]. 1/1th comes from OUR encyclopedia. If the word is so popular then how come we're the main source of its proliferation...kinda makes you think about memes.--Urthogie 15:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, the BBC, which until recently has refused to use the word terrorist[3], is the source of about 1 million of those hits[4]. Really, 4 million means nothing on the internet when it comes to words like this. And by the way, if you want to rely on the BBC as authoritative for words, then how about we take out terrorist from the article as well. The search means nothing.--Urthogie

I have read the page, thanks. "The idea of an Islamic government, has only really become popular in the last twenty-five years?" Huh? You might check our category on Caliphates. The point regardless was not that it's more modern but rather that there is no serious difference between it's precepts and the core precepts of Islam itself. It's like calling Calvin's Geneva "Christianist." Again, a definition in search of a distinction. Put another way, if Islamist and Islamic are distinct concepts than you'd expect as a corollary to the main definition of the former—"political" and seeking "implement Islamic values in all spheres of life."—opposing values in the latter. But that, of course, is untrue. Islam has always been political. It has always sought to implement values in all spheres of life. There are Islamic (or should I say Islamist?) codifications for how to wash your hands! As for usage, any search you do (with terrorism or without, with quotes or without etc.) turns up an order of magnitude difference. Or, I'll see your 4.5 million and raise you 71 million for Islamic. And quote as many millions as you like--in conventional usage it is very rarely employed or at least is never the default when an adjective is demanded... As one example, the source I just added from the U.S. gov uses "Islamic extremists" in its categorization. Now, should I here change that to Islamist extremists? I think not. Marskell 15:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Meriam Webster gives one definition for islamism [5]: the faith, doctrine, or cause of Islam. In the entire world of authoritative dictionaries, there is only one definition for islamist to be found: n : a believer or follower of Islam [syn: Muslim, Moslem, Mohammedan, Muhammedan, Muhammadan, Islamist] It isn't logical to argue that the islamic meaning of the word is the more commonly assumed one. The title is indefensible, even on the grounds of not offending.--Urthogie 15:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

American Heritage dictionary is an authoritative dictionary, the standard dictionary for many news organizations. I'm not sure what dictionary the BBC uses, but since the BBC is one of the largest and most respected news organizations in the world, especially in reporting across languages and cultures, it is significant that many of the hits came from there. As for 4.5 hits for Islamist vs 71 million for Islamic, this exactly proves my point. Islamist is a more precise word so you would expect to see it limited mostly to the context of political struggles. The word Islamic is obviously a much more general word. Even if you take out the WP hits (though I'm not sure why you would) you still have over 4 million hits for a word that is supposedly "obscure". --Lee Hunter 16:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll make this simple, as theres no need to debate every technicality:

For Islamism:

(in addition to the other one) "The religious faith, principles, or cause of Islam."--The American Heritage

"The faith, doctrine, or cause of Islam"--Meriam Webster

"The Muslim religion"--The Chamber's dictionary 2002(only definition there for it)

For Islamist:

"A believer or follower of Islam [syn: Muslim, Moslem, Mohammedan, Muhammedan, Muhammadan, Islamist]"--Princeton's Wordnet

"A muslim"--The chamber's dictionary 2002

"czz--The chamber's dictionary 2002

You are picking the one definition, thats accepted by only one authoritative source, that suits your POV. I didn't want to assume bad faith, but at this point it is clear you are choosing the exception to the other dictionaries, because all the sources agree on the one you are not willing to accept. And its disrupting wikipedia by making us put time into fixing this through argument. I don't see how your twisting and turning arguments can be seen as anything other than a last hitch attempt to keep the word that you favor.--Urthogie 16:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, Tom, despite his POV on keeping this, admits that my logic is correct. I don't see how you could stray from this point of view now that I've placed all the authoritative dictionaries I can find around my house and on the entire internet! Well, either way, your choice if you want to keep arguing this point.--Urthogie 17:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Merriam Webster is indeed considered to be an authoritative source (although I recall that the online version is not as comprehensive as the print version. I'll check later with my copy at home). Princeton WordNet is a computer science project not a traditional dictionary and certainly not an authoritative source. Chambers Dictionary (which you quote three times) is the dictionary of choice for Scrabble players but noted for its quirks and hardly the last word in reference works. Again, I note with a sigh, that you are taking the SECOND definition from AHD and presenting it as if it has some great significance. There is a reason why dictionaries present their meanings in a particular order. If you want to see how the word is used in real life, why not just Google "islamist" and scan through the first pages of hits? --Lee Hunter 18:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

^ Fine, we'll check oxford as well(to make it 4 to 1 instead of 3 to 1). And by the way, Chambers dictionary is authoriative. Just because they address subjects like "cake" with wit, doesn't mean their whole dictionary isn't authoritative. Wordnet is authoritative. Yes, they use advanced computing methods. And that somehow makes them not a reliable source for language, even though its made by the language institute at Princeton? Even if it's not the final say, it is authoritative.

Can we state in advance that if oxford doesn't have your definition that you essentially lose this argument? I make this request because I feel you will continue this debate in a filibuster so as to make this get nowhere. It's important that we set objective standards in advance, so that things don't just become arguing for the sake of arguing.--Urthogie 19:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

From the Wordnet article "Unlike other dictionaries, WordNet does not include information about etymology, pronunciation and the forms of irregular verbs and contains only limited information about usage." WordNet is a computer-generated research tool. Authoritative means that something is regarded as an authority (i.e. news organizations list it as the dictionary of reference). I know that for the English language AHD, Oxford and MW are regarded as authoritative but I've never heard of any organization relying on Chambers or WordNet. I don't see why you keep accusing me of filibustering. It seems like there are at least two parties to this conversation. --Lee Hunter 21:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I do think that rather than just reverting, you should make an effort to incorporate Urthogie's changes. Even though I don't support renaming the article at this time, Urthogie has presented a rational argument for his position. I think the article should reflect that, in some kind of compromise language. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I didn't see anything to incorporate. It looked more like he was trying to continue this discussion in the middle of the article and that's hardly the place for it. --Lee Hunter 18:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I wrote stuff other than that sentance, and its somewhat offensive that you revert it all because of one part that still needs checking. Please remove that sentance, and keep the rest. I'll assume good faith and let you do this yourself instead of doing it without your permission.--Urthogie 19:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's the diff [6] All I can see is that you added a sentence and moved a sentence. What else are you referring to? --Lee Hunter 19:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The move was a good decision, I think the dictionary defs should be moved to the beginning, as facts are the most important thing at wikipedia. Feel free to take out the part about Miflin for now. Also, please see my other reply and reply to that.^[7]--Urthogie 20:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

As Lou Reed writes, "I am tired...I am weary". There's a lot of repetition here and we're beginning to argue about ancillary stuff not on topic with the main point. But to jump back, I must repeat a point to Lee. The essential objection to Islamist (for my part) has not been whether it is a narrow or broad definition. The objection is that it is a confused definition, founded on a non-existent dichotomy. Answer me this: What is fundamental about Islamism that distinguishes it from Islam itself? I guess I've implied that question without asking it directly, but I have yet to see an answer. I have more I'd like to say (repeat) but at least answer that so that I know we're wasting breath addressing the same point. If not clear, I do not believe there is a difference sufficient b/w Islamism and Islam itself that demands we ignore conventional usage. That's essentially the point I've been trying to make. Marskell 22:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I retract my assertion that Wordnet is authoriative after doing some research[8]. The reason I feel like you're filibustering is because I'm getting exasperated-- I feel as if this argument will never end. Heres a question, and think carefully when you answer it: If it is proven that the definition of 'Islamism' that is similar or synonymous to 'Islamic' is recognized by more sources than the alternative definition as a revivalist movement, would you support a move of the article?--Urthogie 22:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

In answer to your question: no. First of all it's not "Islamism" versus "Islamic", the question is "Islamist terrorism" versus "Islamic terrorism". This is a crucial difference and gets back to the heart of my argument. No matter how you define "Islamism", the derivative word "Islamist" can only be used in the context of persons. Even if we agreed that Islamism and Islam are exactly the same thing, we are still left with the fact that an "Islamist" can only be a person. An Islamist is either a follower of Islam (to take your definition) or a proponent of political Islam. Your definition or mine, it doesn't matter. "Islamic terrorism" therefore implies terrorism that springs directly from the religion of Islam (as in Islamic art) which is a highly contentious assertion. "Islamist terrorism" refers to actions committed by a person who claims to be a Muslim, which to me is a much more clear and defensible position. An even better title would be "Terrorism Committed in the Name of Militant Islam" but that's a little awkward. --Lee Hunter 00:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, OK you wouldn't support a move even if "Islamism and Islam are exactly the same thing." But I don't quite follow the rest of the logic, particularly "Islamist can only be a person." Do you mean literally it can only be deployed as a noun (it's not functioning as one here)? If so, should we rename this "Islamistic terrorism"? Further, it simply does not follow that using Islamic "implies terrorism that springs directly from the religion of Islam." I can call the Lord's Resistance Army Christian and still hold that Christianity is not an insane, murderous cabel. Marskell 07:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

What the f*ck? "Your definition or mine, it doesn't matter". You don't have a definition for Islamist(you only have one for Islamism) from an authoritative source. Definitions do matter. Also, Lee, you've made clear that definitions won't convince you, so what do you expect us to do? Youre basically admitting that your argument isn't objectively defensible.

Your opinion on this is just that-- an opinion. I'll assume good faith once again, and ask: what would it take for you to stop arguing against this? By the way, accuracy is an irrelevant argument anyways-- the standard at wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. And we've verified the move. So stop arguing for truth. Try arguing for objective verifiability. --Urthogie 11:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to move it

I'm going to move it. Here's why:^

From Wikipedia:Naming conflict: (Guideline, which happens to agree but is secondary to policy, which you're about to see!)

"The three key principles are: The most common use of a name takes precedence; If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name except for conflicting scientific names; If neither the common name nor the official name is prevalent, use the name (or a translation thereof) that the subject uses to describe itself or themselves."

From Wikipedia:Naming_conventions: <-------HEYA POLICY RIGHT HERE, LOOK NO FURTHER

"Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature."

This makes it clear that the popular term always gets precedence, except in the case of science. Since both parties in this debate agree that Islamic terrorism is used more commonly in person and by the press, I am moving it. Please do not move it back, as this is policy speaking, not me. Thank you.--Urthogie 12:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

PS: To prevent shock from the long debate we had I'm going to allow opposing sides to respond to my interpretation of policy.--Urthogie 12:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

But what about Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision). You are proposing to take the precision of Islamist Terrorism (terrorism committed by Islamists) and move it to Islamic Terrorism (terrorism that is part of the religion of Islam). This is simply moving from the precise to the imprecise. --Lee Hunter 13:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Islamist terrorism can include Islamic terrorism, based on the most common definition. So that fails. Any other concerns?--Urthogie 13:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. You have completely missed my point. An Islamist is a person. Islamist terrorism could not possibly include "Islamic terrorism" because Islamic (from Islam > Islamic) refers to everything under Islam. An Islamist IS A PERSON. It doesn't matter how you define Islam or Islamism. An Islamist is someone (again A PERSON) who follows Islam. Therefore by using "Islamist terrorism" you are providing the reader with the useful distinction between terrorism committed by followers of Islam from terrorism that is supposedly "Islamic". The reason why this is a useful distinction is because many people in both academia and the media persuasively argue that there is NO SUCH THING as "Islamic Terrorism" because terrorism is, by definition, inherently un-Islamic. --Lee Hunter 14:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

To be clear Lee, because you didn't address my question above, Islamist is both an adjective and a noun. In the title to this page it is being deployed in the former sense: "of or relating to Islamism." Now insofar as Urth and myself see no obvious distinction b/w Islamism and Islam, the adjective Islamic makes more sense because it is far and away the more common word. Marskell 15:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It makes no difference whether it as an adjective or a noun. It still conveys the sense of a person. Islamist and Islamic are not synonyms. "Islamic ideals" and "Islamist ideals" are very different. The first means something that is inherent to Islam and the second refers to beliefs (right or wrong) that are held by a believer/follower/proponent of Islam. --Lee Hunter 16:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This insistence that Islamist = person, Islamic = "system itself" strikes me as rather artificial. Yes, it does matter that it is deployed adjectivally here because if you accept no distinction between the systems the adjective forms do become synonyms and we should accept the common one as a matter of policy. Are you suggesting that Islamic can't be taken to refer to persons? What would "Islamic attitudes" mean to you? Again, we have: a) self-identifying Muslims b) referring to the Qur'an c) acting (badly) on behalf of the Muslim world and (supposed) Islamic principles. Marskell 17:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course I am not suggesting that Islamic "can't" refer to persons. Once again, Islamic refers to the whole ball of wax (including persons) whereas Islamist DOES strongly imply the person. You have the Islamic world, Islamic art, Islamic beliefs, Islamic law. But if you start saying the Islamist world, Islamist art, Islamist beliefs etc. you have narrowed the scope signficantly to Islamists. Narrower. More specific. Persons. Not Islam as a whole. Persons. Islamists. That's also why Christian Terrorism is marginally more acceptable than Islamic Terrorism because "Christian" can refer to people who believe themselves to be followers of Christ. Islamic Terrorism would be on a parallel with "Christlike terrorism". There is no Christlike Terrorism. There is no Islamic Terrorism. --Lee Hunter 17:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

So what if it refers to the whole ball of wax? Bin Laden refers to the whole ball of wax: the history of the Crusades, the Sunni-Shia split, apostacy and correct adherence, the geography, demography and economy of the Muslim world (and much of the rest of the world). And again, you're making the mistake of assuming that employing the label Islamic constitutes a normative judgement on Islam itself. To use an above example, if the Pope declared the Lord's Resistance Army "Unchristian and adhorrent to the faith" I'd agree and if some asked what is the inspiration for the movement's leader I'd say "Christian or biblical." It's perfectly plausible to hold to both those points.

Finally, "there is no Christlike Terrorism. There is no Islamic Terrorism" is reductionist to the point of being non-sensical. I've asked you to explain how the latter can be asserted unequivocally and I don't see an answer. To repeat two points: allowing killing for "those who create disorder in the land" is an enormously ambiguous injunction and the notion of terrorism in the context we're debating post-dates Islam by a 1000 years. Marskell 18:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with semantics. It has more to do with the fact that you see a Muslim blowing himself up a lot more than a christian on the TV. If I were a muslim I'd be arguing my hardest here for a way to seperate myself from that as well. I'm Jewish, and I don't seperate myself from the Stern Gang Jewish Terrorists. Oh well.--Urthogie 20:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Islamist and Islamic are not synonyms. Any move that happens will need consensus. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a question of policy, not favoritism.--Urthogie 19:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a request for comment would be useful. It might bring in some more opinions and broaden the discussion. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I already filed one, and I'm yet to see any people treating this as a policy issue (instead of a battle of ideas) except you and Marskell :(--Urthogie 19:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Lee, you're arguing for truth and precision. That's not the standard at wikipedia. Verfiability is. I have presented verifiable reason through dictionary. You have not been able to match it, so you argue in the realm of truth(aka filibuster). Please stop arguing for truth, as its not the standard at wikipedia. I could care less what you think about a muslim blowing himself up, as its irrelevant to the debate. Naming conventions isn't a policy, it's a guideline. Policy trumps guideline. Please stop arguing for what you think is true for a second, and address why a guideline should be allowed to dictate over policy.--Urthogie 20:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Whether it's a guideline or a policy, truth and precision should not be lightly dismissed. You keep saying I haven't addressed your dictionary argument, when in fact it has been exhaustively and painfully addressed above. "Please stop arguing for truth, as its not the standard at wikipedia." I hope they engrave my tombstone with "He never stopped arguing for truth". --Lee Hunter 20:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the point is that no matter what is true, we only publish what is verifiable; but of course you know that. Urthogie has indeed presented verifiable information supporting his position. Stirring rhetoric notwithstanding, you need to counter his arguments with verifiable citations of your own, not appeals to emotion. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

And where do you see that I have been appealing to emotion? I have supplied my own citations (and wasted a heck of a lot of energy pointing out that some of his citations were not useful). But in any case, this has nothing to do with verifiability. We have established beyond a doubt that both Islamic Terrorism and Islamist Terrorism are widely used. The only question is whether the somewhat greater popularity of "Islamic Terrorism" trumps the precision and logic of "Islamist Terrorism" and whether "Islamic Terrorism" presents the reader with a subtle (and completely avoidable) western bias and viewpoint. --Lee Hunter 21:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)#

Precision is the third issue. Policy first, then guidelines. The two policies that apply are: which word is more commonly used, and which is VERIFIABLY more accurate. Truth and precision come third at wikipedia. And that's good, because it makes arguments eventually end.--Urthogie 21:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a verifiably more accurate source for this article title. Neither of us can provide some ultimate proof that "Islamic Terrorism" is more or less accurate than "Islamist Terrorism" because there is no such thing. We can only extrapolate from other sources. The dictionaries give a tiny contradictory shred of information about Islam and Islamism but it doesn't help much. I could also cite, for example, the Muslim Almanac, which uses "Islamist" exclusively in discussing political Islam and you could easily find another book that doesn't. But in any editing, you have to ask yourself "What is it that best serves the reader?". I've told you why I believe that "Islamist terrorism" serves the reader. I'd like to know how changing the title to "Islamic Terrorism" serves the reader (given that there is already a redirect for that title). What is it you want to communicate to the reader that is not being communicated by the current title? If the only reason you want to do this is to follow what you imagine to be the "rules" then you have failed as an editor. The role of the editor is to serve the reader not be a slave to guidelines. --Lee Hunter 21:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

In the case of controversial issues, you can't claim abstract concepts such as "serving the readers." People would use that idealistic, subjective excuse for everything controversial if that was the basis for argument. You have moved from the realm of the objective to the emotional and idealistic-- its pointless, man.--Urthogie 21:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish. Serving the reader is hardly an abstract concept. I've been an editor for most of the past 30 years. and serving the reader is exactly what I do (along with a few other things like helping my employer stay profitable). I have very carefully delineated how the current title helps the reader's understanding of the subject and I've shown how changing it will give the reader a misleading impression of the subject. You have done nothing to explain why changing it to "Islamic Terrorism" improves the article in any way whatsoever. I don't know about you, but I'm here for no other reason than to make the article better (more accurate, more interesting, more informative etc.). All I'm asking is that you explain how the change to Islamic Terrorism is an improvement. If you can't show how it makes a better article, it shouldn't be done. --Lee Hunter 14:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

If you think the policies of wikipedia don't serve the reader, please bring it up at the policy talk pages. I'm going to do this move unless you bring up any reasons why this isn't what policy dictates. Thank you, --Urthogie 14:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

No, please don't. There is clearly no consensus for this move. Controversial moves require consensus to be established; that is clear policy. Palmiro | Talk 14:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)\

I haven't moved it yet. And saying NO doesn't stop consensus-- reasons do, arguments, interpretation of policy.--Urthogie 14:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, consensus is also a guideline, so policy comes first as always(sorry). Any other concerns about my interpretation of policy on this controversial subject? If not, I'll move it pretty soon. Thanks!--Urthogie 15:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Which policy are you claiming to follow? As far as I can see, the Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(common_names)#Don.27t_overdo_it page clearly supports the view that it should remain here. I strongly oppose your suggested move, and please don't issue ultimatums that other people have to prove you wrong or jump over the moon in the next fifteen minutes or else you will just do what you want to do regardless of consensus. I have spent far too much time on this already today. Let me make the following clear: 1. I don't believe you have refuted my points above, 2. I don't believe policy supports your position, 3. there is no consensus. No consensus = no move. Palmiro | Talk 15:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I should explain more throughly..consensus is a guideline(and so is that link you just responded with, it's a guideline too. Scroll up^[9] to read the policies as they apply to this. Sorry but consensus is not the determining factor, policy is. Fortunately, policy has been made in such a way that people can't enforce a POV through tyranny of the majority. I love wikipedia.

Anyways, unless you have any policy concerns, which come before guidelines(such as consensus), I am going to move it. Thanks, I'm sure you understand!--Urthogie 16:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't state my response better than Tom has. I'm a 16 year old kid, and my mom, in reading this, said she has a lot of rachmanas for you. In yiddish, that means sympathy. I have rachmanas for your position too-- you are clearly a moral, intelligent guy who is misrepresented by those who misinterpret your religion. But my rachmanas can't be extended into Wikipedia. This isn't an argument, there's no reasonable doubt left.--Urthogie 21:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

"My religion"!? What on earth makes you think that I'm a Muslim? --Lee Hunter 21:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I assumed. And its a good faith, so why not? :) --Urthogie 21:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Link to Christian terrorism

There's some related discussion at Talk:Christian terrorism#Link to Islamist terrorism. Input would be welcome. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Definition of Islamism

The term Islamism is defined in wikipedia. If you want to mention third-party definitions of the term, you must do it in Islamism article. For the sake of consisitency, all other wikipedia articles that use the term Islamism must refer to wikipedia's article, otherwise we shall have a mess of inconsistent definitions. Mukadderat 02:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: "and for your info, dictionary.com relies on meriam webster" Please don't think that I am so stupid. I wrote that *.com is a "compilator": it just collects definitions from various onlne dictionaries, and there is no reason to give it credit. If wikipedia's "islamism" article is poor, improve it. But to refer for this word from this article to another dictionary is simply humiliating. Mukadderat 02:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry dude but wikipedia is a work in progress and is NOT meant to be an authoritative source. Inconsistent definitions, unfortunately characterize wikipedia. We have to rely on authoritative sources, not other articles.

I didn't intend to humiliate you and you definitely know what you're doing. You are wrong on one point though: wikipedia being authoritative. Wikipedia itself admits that its not a reliable source, no matter how much work we put into it.

I'm fine with the edit in its current state, and just want you to know that no offense was intended.--Urthogie 08:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you. May be I had bad summary, because of small space, but please read my text here carefully. What I am saying is that a definition of a thing ust be in one place. In particular, yes wikipedia cannot be the ultimate authoritative source for the definition if islamism, but the references to authoritative sources about islamism must be in one place, namely, in article "Islamism." I can name a dozen of reasons wny it should be so.

Now, once again, in separate items:

1. wikipedia is not the "last" word about islamism, but the reference to the "last" word must be in islamism article, where it may be carefully discussed in detail from various aspects.
2. Absolutely similarly to wikipedia, neither dictionary.com, nor webster are "last" words about "islamism".
3. There is absolutely no reason to assume that wikipedia is worse than webster.

Thank you for your patience. Mukadderat 17:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge

The concept & discussion in Islamism , Militant Islam & Islamist terrorism is a lot similar .See Zionism & Zionist terrorism for an example . So Militant Islam & Islamist terrorism should be merged . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 20:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes they should be merged. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay merge.

I agree that Militant Islam and Islamist terrorism should be merged. Yuber^(talk) 21:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The merge seems like a cover-up to me. NO. Zora 21:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Well apart from what it seems , I dont see any reason for havng both militant & terrorism article , b/c both things are (wrongly)considered to be the same in the context of Islam . I dont think there is a possibility of having a Legitimate militant Islam article , so whats the difference b/w these two. To me , both concepts seem to be the same . Am I missing anything here . Also I dont see the reason behind what it seems . We dont have Militant Zionism & Zionist terrorism articles , or Militant Americans & American Terrorism articles , Why not the same things be followed here . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 21:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

What is being covered up? How can something fall under "Militant Islam" but not under "Islamist terrorism"? Do people who use both words really differentiate between the two?Yuber^(talk) 21:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The merge seems a very sensible and obvious thing to do to me. --Victim of signature fascism 21:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, Hezbollah and the Iranian revolution seem obvious examples of what could uncontroversially be categorised as militant Islam, but not as Islamist terrorism. Some of the Afghan mujahedin organisations equally. Militancy isn't the same as terrorism, as any dictionary will show. Personally, I'm strongly opposed to politically discriminatory use of the word "terrorism" to mean only violence by non-state actors, but hijacking the word "militancy" to serve the same purpose doesn't seem an improvement. Palmiro | Talk 22:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The words "militancy" and "terrorism" are not interchangeable. One could say that all terrorists are militant but not all militants are terrorists. Having said that, I don't think this "Islamist terrorism" article is particularly useful because it throws a huge grab bag of mostly unrelated incidents and movements into a big pot and slaps on a label of "Islamist terrorism". This article is more about how Islamist terrorism is seen in the west than about Islamist terrorism itself. I don't even think one can make a coherent article with this title. It makes more sense to address each conflict separately. --Lee Hunter 22:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

This is the intro of the Militant Islam article Militant Islam is a contentious term, often used by Western political commentators to describe the ideologies of groups viewed as participating in Islamist terrorism. I don't see any difference between the two concepts. Although I agree with Palmiro that Hezbollah can be classified as militant Islam and not Islamist terrorism, I don't know of any sources that we could use for that point of view. Yuber^(talk) 23:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

How about the European Union, which very carefully refrains from categorising the Hizb as a terrorist organisation? Palmiro | Talk 23:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

But the question is does the European Union use the exact words "Militant Islam" in its classification of Hezbollah?Yuber^(talk) 23:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC

No, I mean it doesn't categorise it in any way (to mw knowledge), it just declines to categorise it as terrorist (although it has categorised its external security division as such). But I don't think we need to get into a tizzy about whether calling it militant islam is OR. Palmiro | Talk 23:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Typical coverup crap and they only bother to discuss it AFTER their phony merge listing was removed for their lack of bothering to discuss.

Palmiro, I believe the European Union voted on March 10, 2005 to classify the whole of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Not so. If you look at the WP article on Hezbollah, you will see that it correctly states that this was a vote by the European Parliament, which has no authority to make such a designation. As far as I know, this falls entirely within the remit of the Council, which has made no such decision. Palmiro | Talk 13:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with those who feel the merge is inappropriate. Militant Islam is a much broader concept, including many organizations that this topic does not, including state governments (some of which support terrorism but also have their own militias) and regional groups such as those in Sudan that do not fit the classical terrorist definitions. And I disagree strongly with LeeHunter that this article cannot be made creditable, it certainly can. What is needed to make it so is much more good-faith discussion on talk pages and a willingness by all sides to behave civilly. Instead, we have been seeing very heated discussions involving pejorative words towards both editors and sources. Queeran

I dont think ther is a clissical , agreed definition of terrorism . Its just a term that anybody can use for everybody . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 10:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I agree with a lot of things said here. Militancy & terrorism are 2 different things. But we aren’t talking about what they are; we are talking about the articles. These 3 articles (Islamism, Militant Islam, Islamist terrorism) have got a lot of similar content. They aren’t articles, they are only redundant essays. Either we should have a militancy article that doesn’t discuss terrorism & a terrorism article that discusses terrorism only, or we should merge both. My aim of putting a merge notice here was to make two decent articles out of 3 extremely long, incoherent, redundant articles. I could have done it myself, but I thought this way I might be able to attract more knowledgeable & and experienced users.

Now if we see Islamism article, intro seems to be fine, definition is weird (there is no definition there at all). History is again incoherent, unsourced claims are everywhere. It doesn’t even tell when was this term first used . Islamism and modern political theory makes no sence . Claims like Several Islamist groups have embraced Nazi like anti-Semitism, as an outgrowth of Islamist anti-Zionism……..doesnt sound very encyclopedic to me. And who calls these organisations in next section as islamist , no sources are given .

In Militant Islam , we have got same essay writing . The intro makes claims , that are not only unsourced , but irrelevent too . Section “ Militancy as the defining attribute “ doesn’t make sence(atleast to me). Third section is a carbon copy of the one in Islamism . Current movements section is the only thing that seems a bit like encyclopedic , followed by…....A cover story!!!!!!

Islamist terrorism….first two sections need cleanup . Third section has no terrorist view , but what westerners believe terrorists might think . It has also got a quote from Robert Pape (Terrorist???) . The next four sections also need a lot of cleanup . It seems like whenever an essaycomes up on the net about islamist terrorism , people add it here . It looks like a notebook of claims .

When we clean it all . we can easily merge Terrorism into Militant article . It wouldnt suggest that all militants are terrorists , but It will (rightly) suggest that all terrorists are militants . I don’t think anybody will disagree with that . We can easily have a militant article with a subsection of terrorism. It seems very logical to me. Doesn’t make any sence to have a dozen carbon copies of the same unsourced data . Secondly, these articles in their current form discuss every militancy as a form of terrorism; it doesn’t say anything about the ‘’fact’’ that there can be militant movements that can’t be considered as terrorist. Maududi & deobandi aren’t militants , they arnt even movements . One of them can easily be considered as .......a carbon based life form . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 10:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to be violent to be militant, you just have to support "rising up!" or something like that. So all terrorists are militant, but not all militants are terrorists. I'd be ok with the merge if we wanna do it, but I'm just saying they're not the same thing.--Urthogie 20:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I have said the same thing . Thats why I had also given the option that we can have a Militant Islam article with a terrorism section . This way , all terrorists are militants , but all militants arnt terrorists . Cheers . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 20:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll begin this.--Urthogie 21:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Can anybody tell me how was this concensus reached & who did it. I think it was only one person who opposed the merge . Three who favoured it(other than me & the anon person). The rest argued that all militancy isnt terrorism . So to that I replied that we can merge this article as a section of Militant Islam . Militant Islam is at the moment 60% copied from Islamism article . According to the concensus , now the rest of it will be copied from here . How this cloning/grafting of these kind of articles actually improves them . Hey we can start a dozen more article , all we need is to rehash the pre-exististant text &....behold...its alive . Did anybody even see the big 3 paragraphs that I had posted above , or is 1 somehow greater than 4 . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 20:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

If you want to weed out consistencies that would probably make more sense than repursuing a merge. Judging by lack of interest I think the consensus was that we wouldn't merge, especially since this consensus was reached like a week ago, and you're the first person to say something since. So I'd say weeding out overlapping content would be more beneficial than resuggesting a merge, but its your choice of course.--Urthogie 21:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Real funny keeping sum1 blocked so they cant vote. dont move this article and it needs a bunch of cleanup and a whole lot of stuff you removed put back including the thing from the pentagon. theres no concenss and whoever put up that infobox was lying. and im pissed about your bs removing my comments from here too Extc

With no admins interested , & no discussions going on , & a clear majority of voters voting in the favour of merge , I will merge this article with Militant Islam , as its section . Cheers . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 06:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Definitely oppose merge and your last comment strikes me as a touch unilateral. While we disagree about the name of the page, Palmiro and Lee basically nailed the arguement IMO. Marskell 18:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose your merge as well, as its a double standard for christian terrorism and jewish terrorism having articles. Also, this topic is very important as can be seen by the google test. All policies indicate this page should stay. So, according to consensus AND policy-- it shouldn't be moved. Thanks, --Urthogie 21:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Serving the reader

I'm starting a new thread on Lee's suggestion we serve the reader because a little digging really makes me question how we've constructed this page. Here's a small example of not serving the reader: "Al-Qaeda is defined by most nations as an Islamist terrorism group." Well, which nations? The U.S. government details Islamic extremist Sunni or Shia organizations [10]. On Al-Qaeda: "Helped finance, recruit, transport, and train Sunni Islamic extremists for the Afghan resistance. Current goal is to establish a pan- Islamic Caliphate throughout the world by working with allied Islamic extremist groups [11]." The Canadian government describes Al-Qaeda this way: "the central component of a network of Sunni Islamic extremist groups associated with Osama bin Laden [12]." The UK regarding similar groups: "the main aims of AIAI are to establish a radical Sunni Islamic state in Somalia," and "the aim of the GIA is to create an Islamic state in Algeria [13]." So what will it be? We continue to gloss in favour of Islamist even when it error? That's not serving the reader. At a minimum, we should change the sentence to "Al-Qaeda is defined by most English-speaking nations as an Islamic terrorist group" but I have suspicion I'd be reverted. I'm really hoping others beyond Lee, Urth and myself might comment on this. Marskell 15:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for Lee to, out of good faith, revert the moving part of my edit(I'm assuming he just forgot)--Urthogie 15:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think Marskell is absolutely right. I'd like to hear Lee's thoughts on this. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Some nice cherries you've picked there. Compare this search [14] to this [15] It shows somewhat more hits for "Islamic Terrorism" than "Islamist Terrorism" but the ratio is much better than searching all sites (.gov plus everything else like personal blogs, rants etc etc.) Looking at government sites only reinforces my point. --Lee Hunter 15:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been sarcastic with you so I'd appreciate the same, OK? Although you're right, they are nice cherries: they're the definition of Al Quaeda et al. provided by the three largest English governments and in each case they use Islamic. I'm not suggesting that the term Islamism never gets mentioned in gov't circles or deployed in writing (particularly given that academics provide the meat of many reports) I was pointing out that a systematic bias in favour of the word here may actually lead us into error. Marskell 16:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for the sarcasm, but it's getting a little tiresome when you haven't bothered to even read your own citations and yet you expect me to take the time and energy to respond. "Ansar al-Islam is a radical Islamist group" that's from one of your cited pages [16] and "The AIAI is an internationally established Islamist organization that engages in terrorism in Somalia and Ethiopia." from another [17]. --Lee Hunter 16:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Islamic is clearly used by the US government to characterise these groups. Whatever else we say, we can't say the US government calls X Islamist if they in fact call X Islamic. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

For someone who talks about picking cherries, you sure do it. Islamist appears once on that first page. Islamic appears about 50 times or more(I stopped pressing find after a certain point, my finger got tired).

As far as the second page, it has islamic and islamist both a lot. But islamic more.--Urthogie 16:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't just click through that page. Look at the instances of "Islamic" and you'll see that many of them are either repetitions (e.g. Islamic Jihad comes up a number of times) or use "Islamic" in another context (e.g. Islamic state). I stand by my cherries. --Lee Hunter 16:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL. I don't see how it can be less than one, Lee. :)--Urthogie 16:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Apologize for sarcasm only to deploy more of it? No, when citing AIAI on the British site I did not read the Canadian equivalent. Je m'excuse. But I did provide direct quotes with each my citations and your comment is absolutely uncalled for. There are more than a few direct questions from me to you above that have been evaded or gone unanswered so apologies again if I have no sympathy for you finding this tiresome. For what it's worth (via cut/paste, find/replace):

Canada: 59 Islamic, 18 Islamist

Britain: 27 Islamic, 3 Islamist

America: 51 Islamic, 1 Islamist

Stand by your cherries, but you won't have much of a pie. Marskell 16:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, please note that just as Islamic can be repeated, so too can Islamist. Also, repeating a word is significant-- they seem to favor it in their writing. So as you can see, people on the internet, and online use Islamic more often(english speakers only of course, as all english wikipedia policies dictate). The page name being changed has nothing to do with this by the way(policy issue), this just pounds in the point of how helpful the move will be to "serving the readers". Thanks, --Urthogie 16:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

That is a sorely limited conception of what would serve the reader. The reader who looks for "Islamic terrorism" will find this page as easily as the reader who looks for "Islamist terrorism". What truly serves the reader is supplying context, truth and precision. But you tell me that you don't care about anything of that. What do you care about? --Lee Hunter 17:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Now you're inundating me with numbers. As I pointed out above, pointing to single instances of a single word without context on a single US page is simply dishonest. How many times does this page use "Islamic terrorism" 0 How many times does it use "Islamist terrorism" 0. How many times does it use Islamic in other contexts other than terrorism or repeat the same phrase (there are six instances of Islamic Jihad alone)? Well, if you insist I'll count them but I can assure you it is a lot. What have we proved by this numerical exercise? Absolutely nothing as far as I can see. --Lee Hunter 17:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Main (for U.S.): "Patterns of Global Terrorism," sub: "Background Information on Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations." The term Islamist is employed once. If this means absolutely nothing to you than discussing the issue would appear absolutely useless. Marskell 17:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Read what I wrote in the above paragraph. They don't talk about "Islamic terrorism" and they don't talk about "Islamist terrorism". They don't use EITHER phrase. Don't you find that the least bit interesting? --Lee Hunter 17:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Typical U.S. "govspeak" on this topic is "Islamic extremist group which has carried out terrorist attacks in a, b, c..." or "radical Islamic group...". They also often drop the subject "Has done..." rather than "'Group' has done..." But they are talking about terrorism and they are readily describing it as Islamic. Anyhow, Tom is right that as point of basic logic we can't say "the US state department maintains a list of Islamist terrorist organiztions" nor leave the line I have noted about al-quaeda if the term is not used. Marskell 17:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

At this point the page name is unrelated to this narrow and specific point. To take one example, we can't say, "the US state department maintains a list of Islamist terrorist organiztions," if they do not. It's just inaccurate. I've heard no good explanation why the article should not be changed at once to reflect that. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I've picked at the state department list and added an extra point in the second section. I'll get to Al-Qaeda later. Marskell 18:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

So watch out Al-Qaeda... Marskell 18:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

word order

Sorry to bring the title up once again, but on IRC a fellow wikipedian made a good point: " oh. Well, it should be Extremist Islamic terrorism then, maybe ... it should be clear that "extremist" modifies "Islam" rather than "terrorism". Agreements/disagreements?--Urthogie 16:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

This misfortunate page has been waiting, bags packed, for a move to an uncertain location for a very long time now. Now that it has finally been resettled I think we should spare it the trauma of a further move for a while.

In relation to the proposed title, to my ears it suggests the presence of a contrasting article on Moderate Islamic Terrorism. Palmiro | Talk 22:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

In case any jokers think of creating that page how about we set it to a redirect?--Urthogie 09:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Intro

I have added a new intro that is much longer. This will (and should) be picked apart. At least it gives us some meat. Two sentences was totally inadequate. The second section was largely redundant with this new intro and I removed it though a re-worked section could be re-introduced. Marskell 18:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this paragraph should go:

Such activity includes country-specific agitation against certain governments, as well as a broader movement by some to establish a pan-Islamic caliphate and introduce Sharia law where possible; the supposed theological basis for violence deployed by terrorists in support of such of goals is usually vigorously contested by other Muslims. Not all movements defined as Islamic extremist have the same goals or use violence.

I find it rambles across a number of tangents without saying much of anything. The first clause of the first sentence is too vague (country-specific agitation against certain governments) and too strange ("Such activity includes ... a broader movement by some to establish a pan-Islamic caliphate" This seems to be saying that working to establish a caliphate is inherently a terrorist activity), while the second clause is ok and could stand on its own. The last sentence doesn't make much sense at all - extremist groups are pretty much, by definition, violent. --Lee Hunter 23:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

article could do with some pictures

To get the point across of what this stuff really results in, pictures would be emotionally powerful as well as factually backup the results of terrorist attacks.--Urthogie 09:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

CltFn has blatantly POVed this article by putting in information about Iran's government and the recent election of Hamas under "Muslim opposition to terrorism". Yuber^(talk) 00:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

When will you begin to admit sourced facts are not POV. Are you saying that this did not happen?--CltFn 00:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any rationale for Iran's government and Hamas elections being relevant to a section called "Muslim opposition to terrorism", especially since you place it at the start of the section? Yuber^(talk) 00:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point I created a new section.--CltFn 01:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Your contribution extrapolates support for terrorism out of unrelated election results. This is simple editorializing. --Lee Hunter 01:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Then fix it , you know the facts , check out the headlines. Can we do better than just blank stuff out?--CltFn 01:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I did fix it. I couldn't see any reason for Hamas or Iranian election results to be in the article, so I reverted it. --Lee Hunter 01:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yuber, while his wording might not have met NPOV standards, the information was sourced. I am going to formally request an admin ban you from this article for revert warring and removing sourced material, as per your RFAR.

Additionally to LeeHunter, please stop editing by revert. Queeran

It's clear to me that the success of Hamas in the recent election is relevent and important. It should be included in some form. I'm less certain about the election of President Ahmadinejad. If he was elected on, or supports, a platform calling for terrorist attacks to destroy the state of Israel, or as a mechanism of Iranian state policy, then maybe. I don't know or suggest that is the case, I just mention it as an example of something that might justify his inclusion in this article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

His statements to the effect that Israel should be destroyed are all made as the head of an Islamic state, which is noteworthy. Queeran

Whether the information is sourced is irrelevant, we still have to consider whether the information falls under this topic or under some other. Even though the militant wing of Hamas is clearly implicated in terrorism, the recent election was not a vote about terrorism or about terrorist tactics. Calling for the destruction of Israel or denying the holocaust, however distasteful, is not terrorism. This is an article about terrorism, not a general article about Islamism or about hatred of Israel. --Lee Hunter 02:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree on this Lee , the point that is becoming more and more obvious is that a majority of islamic voters in Iran and in the palestinian territories have elected leaders who blatantly advocate terrorist acts and tactics. This challenges the notion that a majority of Muslims in those areas are against terrorism . Furthermore the WP:NPOV policy directs us to present all points of view not just one as in the section Muslim opposition to terrorism. If we have this section then we should certainly have Muslim support of terrorism. --CltFn 02:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

But you're spinning this stuff out of thin air. In the recent election Hamas campaigned on a platform of good government not terrorism. You're taking the election results and spinning into a story about voters supporting terrorism. Where is the source for this conclusion?. This is nothing but your POV. --Lee Hunter 02:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we don't know yet to what extent the Palestinian election was a referrendum on terrorism and Hamas' tactics. As the news coverage of the election unfolds over the next week we'll see what we can cite. Let me ask this: If Hamas had been decisively beaten, would anyone point to that as evidence that the Palestinian people had repudiated terrorism? Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Point one, LeeHunter's claim it is "out of thin air" is preposterous. Point two: [18] [19] [20][21]A few sources for you. It seems fairly clear that the Arab world believes Hamas were elected because they are terrorists. Queeran

Man, I just hate it when someone gives me a whole bunch of links to read that supposedly support their position and then I read them and I can't see where it says what they claim it says. Where, in those four articles, does it say that the Arab world believes that Hamas were elected because they are terrorists? I just scanned them quickly but I didn't see that at all. In fact, in quite a few places it said something completely different. --Lee Hunter 03:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of being rude, you should try reading the articles before claiming that you have. I am getting very tired of your cluelessness and misrepresentations. Queeran

Ah yes, WP Talk Page Tactic #17: Make an unsupportable statement ("the Arab world believes that Hamas were elected because they are terrorists") and present a whole bunch of links ([22] [23][24])[25]) that supposedly confirm your outlandish remark in the hope that noone will bother to slog through so much information. If someone does read the articles and asks you to point out where in those articles your statement is supported, you can always just accuse your challenger of being deliberately obtuse or difficult. --Lee Hunter 13:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me you keep switching between the "Arab" and "Muslim" world. Do you see any difference? Actually, in response to Tom Harrison's question about a Hamas loss, the people who write about Palestinian terrorism do not differentiate between "secular terrorism" (that is, terrorism committed by Christians such as George Habash) and "Islamist terrorism", and so a Hamas loss would not have caused them to change their opinions about Palestinian support for terror. Yuber^(talk) 02:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

"...the people who criticize Palestinian terrorism?" Who doesn't criticize Palestinian terrorism? Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

What I meant is those who write in sources that we can use. As for your question, who doesn't criticize Palestinian terrorism, the answer to that would have to be no one, since no one who refers to it as Palestinian terrorism is talking about it positively. Yuber^(talk) 03:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I refuse to speak of the murder of innocent civilians by bloodthirsty religious zealots positively, so lump me in with those who criticize palestinian terrorism. May I assume from your comments that you are on the other side, Yuber? Queeran

You seem to not understand my comments. I am most definitely on the side that criticizes bloodthirsty religious zealots who murder innocent civilians, but the election was not as simple as that, and so it does not show support for terrorism. I may assume from your comments on someone's talk page about the word "salam" not being "real peace" that you are an anti-Arab racist and so I do not wish to continue this discussion with you as you seem to be one of those people who enjoys flame wars. Yuber^(talk) 03:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "Salaam wa'alaikum" in Muslim jurisprudence is meant only for Muslims, and a Muslim greeted as such is obligated to return only "wa'alaikum" instead of the full phrase. That is what I referred to. As for the election being nonsimple, it does not matter really, for there were plenty of options besides turning to a political party that ran a man whose nickname is "hitler" and a mother so callous and hateful she raised her sons as living bombs, and whose open platform includes refusal to recognize Israel. Attempting to portray Hamas any other way is distortion of fact. They are terrorists.

As for your attempting to call me a racist... it is you, sir, who color your every view under the lens of racism. Queeran

The phrase "Salaam wa'alaikum" in Muslim jurisprudence is meant only for Muslims I'm sorry, sir, but the word salaam is an Arabic word meaning peace [26] and it is used by all Arabs, including Jews, Muslims, Christians, and those who have no religion. Your racism is noted and I will stop this discussion here in order to facilitate actual work on this article by people whose goal does not involve painting all Arabs and Muslims as terrorists. Yuber^(talk)

You are wrong sir, as you would find if you spoke with any learned imam. I advise you to do research before speaking.Queeran

[27]"Do not greet the Jews and the Christians with salaam." However, if they salaam first, we may reply by saying "wa alaykum" (and upon you)."

[28]We are not recommended to greet a non-Muslim with As-Salaamu Alaykum. But if any one says to us As-Salaamu ‘Alaykum, we should say wa ‘Alaykum As-Salaam. This is because Allah tells us to respond to any greeting with that which is equal or more.

Try to rein in your lack of knowledge, and please do not insult my intelligence again. Queeran

This is not about the phrase assalamu alaikom and who uses it, but simply about the word salam, and the fact that you do not believe it means peace (as I have shown you above) [29] leads me to think you have some inherent bias against Arabs. Yuber^(talk) 04:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Take it however you will. Your edit warring has been noted and reported already. If you wish to have an open and honest discussion, return anytime and you will find me willing. Queeran

Fun facts, the one source in which Queeran draws his interpretations of Salaam, and the use of the word, states as their mission - and I quote - "To increase awareness as to the extent of oppression against Muslims throughout the world and the conspiracy that exists to exterminate Muslims and the religion of Islam from the face of the Earth." - very NPOV, as one can see. The other simply quotes the answers of one sheikh and his opinions on various matters, in questions sent to him in a live session. If Queeran does not wish people to insult his intelligence, as he claims, then he should make an attempt to show us he has one. Thank you. --TVPR 20:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism in Kashmir

This article is heavily biased towards the incidents in the western hemisphere. There is no mention about the terrorism in Kashmir or in other countries of South East Asia. Shouldnt these also be included? 129.230.248.1 12:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC) Raghu

Yes, please help by adding them.--Urthogie 16:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

How exactly does people fighting for thier land becomes terrorism . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 16:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the specifics on Kashmir, but I'm guessing if a guy pulls a string to blow himself up, he has no morals or conception of what side to fight for in the first place.--:Urthogie 16:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

WEll if he is in front of a dozen of machine guns & tanks , thats that best he can do . You dont need to learn morals when you know if you dont kill your self , you will be tortured to death , by vegetarians . lol . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 16:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Lol. Damn vegetarians. Anyways, a)its immoral to kill yourself in my moral system and b)there are documented cases of civillians being killed in Kashmir. Terrorists have no respect for life, they aren't fighting a "battle." They're like members of a gang.--Urthogie 17:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

a)agree

b)There are documented cases of indian forces burning mosques , raping women . The leader , yaseen malik , has been electrocuted to impotency , one broken hip joint , one paralised eyelid , one immovable jaw joint , two blocked coronary vessels. You dont respect life in front of all these fair means of fighting . You dont ask for rights from tons of steel . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 17:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear F.a.y, Hamas also gives us the same argument that they are fighting against 'tons of steel' and hence have to resort to terrorism. These arguments still do not justify the terror attacks by hamas sponsored terrorists. The same logic applies to Kasmiri terrorism. There might be some people who call it 'freedom struggle'. But I think there is a consensus that the correct term is terrorism... and should be included under this topic in wikipedia.

Coming to your comments on Yasin (Yaseen) Malik, I have never heard this story of his electrocution. Can you please point us to relevant 3rd party sources? I know that he was in Indian jails for multiple charges - kidnap of Rubiya Sayeed, charges of murdering some IAF officers etc. I am not sure if he was indicted or not.

Finally, what does vegetarians mean in your comment "you will be tortured to death , by vegetarians"? Does that mean Hindus? If yes, let me clear your misunderstanding - not all hindus are vegetarians. --129.230.248.1 13:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Raghu

Gandhi seemed to get a lot done, and got killed in a much more dignified way.--Urthogie 17:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Well war of independence was started by muslims , Gandhi tried his best to keep muslims subjugated ( backed by a huge hindu majority ) , and then got assasinated , not by a muslim . If you see history , it was his bigotry that lead to the division of India , & formation of Pakistan . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 14:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Various aspects of the situation had leadership and others were headless, which meant that seperation and conflict were all but inevitable. The British foreign policy was hacked together - the policy circles and imperial administrators were no longer unified, pending the empire's overt breakdown. This had the result of either delaying native nationalizing tendencies or accelerating them (open to debate; it depended upon the specific areas anyway). Either way, the change was too swift. Having to divy up territories which have only marginal associations is almost always a recipe for conflict. Going by religious affiliation is one of the worst (which they did). The two new states, both over-assertive and very sensitive to territory issues, could not peaceable agree to a compromise on an area of land. The non-intervention agreement was not a solution. A de facto military line is not one either. In the midst of the two states bickering, even violently, some natives of the region (not all come from Kashmir) spread a spiritual-political solution that incorporates violence. Now the internal violence is basically an excuse for the governments to externalize the issue and blame the problem itself for existing. International drama has been added to the mix, but this has only fueled the pride and spite both sides share. Pride is a major reason this problem still exists as-is. --Vector4F 04:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I know less than I should about the dispute in Kashmir. It might be useful to hear a Hindu perspective on the situation there. Is there a mechanism on Wikipedia to seek out such an opinion? Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Tom, while I cannot provide you with a Kashmiri Hindu's view... but I can try providing an Indian's view on the same. You should realize that Kashmir is a very emotional issue in the Indian sub continent and hence most of the common citizens are very biased. I have a friend from a Kashmiri pandit family. They have moved out of Kashmir, to New Delhi after a few 'incidents' when they were made to feel unwelcome in their ancestral homes. They left their ancestral home with only those posessions that could fit in a car. They are not the only Kashmiri pandits (Hindus) that were forced to leave their homes. You can find more details about Kashmiri Pandits here. Please note that this looks like a Indian PoV and might not go well with the Pakistan PoV :-)--129.230.248.1 14:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Raghu

Thank you; If you like, contribute to this (or another article). The normal editing process will deal with balancing viewpoints. I added a link within your comment for convenience. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Use of Islamic terrorism and Islamist terrorism vs plain old "terrorism"

I hate to reopen old wounds, but I think it's quite supportable to say that terrorism is usually just called terrorism, even when it involves Islamic extremists. For example, if you search for terrorism and Islam [30] you get 11 million hits whereas "Islamic terrorism" gets about 700k. On government sites Islamic Terrorism only appears about 400 times whereas searching for Islam and terrorism has about 80,000 hits. This seems to be a very strong indication that terrorism is discussed in relation to Islam without calling it Islamic Terrorism (or Islamist Terrorism for that matter) That's why I've edited that paragraph in the opening to qualify that "Islamic terrorism" is not necessarily the most common term for terrorism by Islamic extremists. --Lee Hunter 19:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Why not change the title to Islam & terrorism . Nicest idea IMO . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 20:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Lee, that is completely unscientific. First off, you didnt use boolean search paramaters to exclude cases of "Islamic terrorism" from your search for Islam and terrorism. Second, you assume that Islam is a word mentioned always when Islamic terrorism is being discussed. Third, you forget that the word Islam can appear on a page about guys who happened to practice Islam then became Marxist terrorists. Google searches can be a great tool, but not when theyre used this blindly. There are many other reasons why your searches mean nothing scientifically, but these basic reasons should be enough. Thanks.--Urthogie 12:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

1)Who needs to do a boolean search? Just subtract 700,000 from 11 million (10.3 million) in the case of the general web or 400 from 80,000 (79,600) in the case of .gov sites. 2) your point makes no sense whatsoever 3) Surely you're joking? You're suggesting that the whole world is talking about MARXIST Muslim terrorists?? Here's another point. September 11 was an act of "Islamic terrorism" right? And yet if you search for "9/11" and "terrorism" you get about 20 million hits. Subtract all 700,000 possible instances of "Islamic terrorism" and you're not even down to 19 million. So when people talk about the most famous case of terrorism involving Islamic fundamentalists they hardly ever use the phrase "Islamic terrorism". So what's your basis for claiming that "Islamic terrorism" is the most widely used term? Please explain YOUR rationale. I think I've pretty conclusively shown that people just call it "terrorism" plain and simple without qualifying it as Islamist or Islamic. --Lee Hunter 12:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Lee, I'm sorry but searching Islam (and) terrorism without quotes and "Islamic terrorism" in quotes is not a valid comparison. Islamic terrorism without quotes gets 14.3 million versus 10.9 million for Islam terrorism. Marskell 13:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point of this discussion. The quotes are absolutely necessary. We are, after all, discussing the exact term "Islamic terrorism" and NOT instances where "Islamic" and "terrorism" happen to appear on the same page. I did another search for "9/11" and "Islamic terrorism". The results? A mere 301 hits. So people use "terrorism" by itself in discussing 9/11 about 20 million times and "Islamic terrorism" 300 times. So how did we arrive at this idea that "Islamic terrorism" is the most commonly used term. People just call it terrorism. --Lee Hunter 13:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess I am missing the point because I don't know what you're suggesting. That we merge this with Terrorism (we shouldn't do that)? That we call it "Islam and terrorism" as F.A.Y. suggests (OK, possibly)? Also, I have made clear at least for myself that "instances where 'Islamic' and 'terrorism' happen to appear on the same page" IS relevant. Or at least instances where the words appear in the same description of a particular event or a group. I've noted a few times that I think the most common type of sentence is "X is an Islamic extremist (or radical Muslim, or radical Islamic) group which has carried out terrorist attacks in A, B, C." Marskell 13:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Read the first post in this thread. This is not about the title of the article. This is about one paragraph in the article where it now says "Where such terrorist activity is essentially political it is sometimes termed Islamist terrorism, especially by social scientists and political commentators. In the West, Islamic terrorism remains a more common term, while Western governments employ Islamic extremism as well." My point is that this is misleading. By far the most common term is to simply call it "terrorism". By comparison, the use of "Islamic terrorism" is relatively rare. That's why I've added "In most cases, however, terrorism, even when committed by Islamic extremists, is not identified as Islamist or Islamic." If you object to using Google searches, what basis is there for saying that "Islamic terrorism" is the more common term? Did you do a poll? --Lee Hunter 14:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes Lee, I've done a poll but unfortunately the results are still proprietary. Pointing out that people simply call it terrorism is obvious to the point of irrelevance. It's like noting that Jupiter's moon Ganymede is "simply called a moon" or that when I ask for a chocolate chip cookie I simply say "give me a cookie." And what's wrong here is that in introducing an idea so pedestrian we actually increase ambiguity. "In most cases, however, terrorism, even when committed by Islamic extremists, is not described as 'Islamist terrorism' or 'Islamic terrorism'", simply begs the question "what the hell do people call it?" Oh, they just call it terrorism. Well, no shit. It's a point that doesn't need proving. Marskell 16:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You write "Pointing out that people simply call it terrorism is obvious to the point of irrelevance." How do you figure that? The sentence before is making a big deal about how "Islamic terrorism" is used more than "Islamist terrorism" This would leave the reader with the entirely mistaken impression that if they want to talk about "terrorism and Islam", they should call it "Islamic terrorism" in preference to "Islamist terrorism". This would be a mistake because the common usage (by an astonishing margin) is to use NEITHER. How could this not be relevant? --Lee Hunter 21:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Also please note that the first hits to come up for Islam and terrorism are Islamic views of terrorism in general, rather than Islamic views of "Islamic terrorism."--Urthogie 16:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

And your point is what? --Lee Hunter 21:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

My point is that that search result can therefore not be used for making claims about word choice when people talk about islamic terrorism-- because the word Islam on a page doesn't guarantee theyre discussing Islamic terrorism, as can be seen by the first search results.--Urthogie 23:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, first editing via revert leads nowhere. I have re-worked the para and plz bring it here before reverting if that is your first instinct.

Lee, I think my comment pretty straightforward. You can obviously grasp the fact that "terrorism" is a generic term in the same way "moon" and "cookie" are. Obviously a general component of a specific definition is going to get more hits and refs than the specified term will as a whole. Put another way, it is logically impossible that "Islamic terrorism" could have more attestations on Google than "terrorism" itself. Yes, I do think this is "obvious to the point of irrelevance." I have been debating "Islamic" versus "Islamist" terrorism because they are both second order definitions--e.g., particular types of terrorism. By suddenly arriving at the fact that both terms pale in comparison to the first order definition, "terrorism", you're muddying the waters needlessly. If I employed this logic I could start a tautological page name debate on every other article. Why the hell is cheddar called cheddar and not simply cheese? Marskell 22:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I think according to the logic on this talk page, we should call the article Cheddar and cheese, on the curious ways that the two concepts seem to overlap! :)--Urthogie 22:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest Who Moved My Cheese? for a title but I see that it's been taken. --Lee Hunter 17:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Searches: Government:

• site:*.gov terrorism 9/11 = 244,000
• site:*.gov "Islamic terrorism" 9/11 = 166

Confirms that the government is aware that other forms of terrorism exist! Great point!--Urthogie 19:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Entire web:

• terrorism 9/11 = 18,000,000
• "Islamic terrorism" 9/11 = 303,000

Golly gee, a two word phrase in quotes getting way less hits than one of the words inside it. Wow!--Urthogie 19:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Bin Laden

• "bin laden" terrorism = 13,100,000
• "bin laden" "islamic terrorism" = 263,000

Notice how you've refused to include the boolean paramater: NOT "Islamic terrorism" in the first one, thereby hammering in a strikingly irrelevant point.--Urthogie 19:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You're pulling my leg again aren't you? Did you actually try the boolean search (+"bin laden" -"islamic terrorism")? I get 28 million hits. How does this show that "islamic terrorism" is commonly used? This seems to conclusively show that people go out of their way to avoid it. Again, I have to insist that you put up or shut up. Give me some evidence that "islamic terrorism" is more common. You have provided absolutely nothing so far and its getting damned annoying. --Lee Hunter 19:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Suicide bombing

• "suicide bombing" terrorism = 1,190,000
• "suicide bombing" "islamic terrorism" = 49,000

Wow, amazing. I never thought that a set that includes all of the first one and then some would have less hits! Boolean logic at its finest!--Urthogie 19:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Every possible search you can do on the web confirms that when people talk about terrorism by Islamic extremists" they do NOT typically call it "Islamic terrorism". In fact, the use of "Islamic terrorism" is relatively rare (in comparison to just calling it "terrorism") To suggest in the article that "Islamic terrorism" IS somehow the common term is provably incorrect and, given the above facts, utterly dishonest. --Lee Hunter 18:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Lee, I really respect you as a rational thinker so I don't see how you're coming to your conclusions. look-- if there exist any types of terrorism other than Islamic terrorism, terrorism has to get more hits. its simple logic. its also simple logic that a two word phrase will always have more hits than its component words. Sheesh.--Urthogie 18:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

For heaven's sake, would you guys LOOK at the actual searches that I'm showing you! The whole point of the above list is that I am NOT searching for generic use of terrorism - I'm searching for Bin Laden and terrorism versus Bin Laden and Islamic terrorism; suicide bombing and terrorism vs suicide bombing and islamic terrorism etc. I am specifically narrowing it down to the context where any reasonable person would expect to see "Islamic terrorism" if it were true that "Islamic terrorism" was the common term. It is absolutely crystal clear from the above list that the vast majority of people DO NOT USE "Islamic terrorism" when they talk about Bin Laden, suicide bombing or 9/11. They simply call it terrorism. I keep showing you more and more evidence. I keep asking for your rationale and you give me some empty and illogical blathering about logic. Put up or shut up. Show me some evidence to support your position. --Lee Hunter 19:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Crazy extremist muslims with strings attached to themselves aren't the only suicide bombers. Suicide bombing is often talked about in the context of Marxist terrorism, or from an engineering perspective. Suicide bombing is also addressed from a religious point of view. My point comes down to this, Lee: I could call you Lee every single second, Lee, but I don't need to-- I can use a pronoun like you. The same is true with the phrase Islamic terrorism. After you talk about this type of terrorism(notice how I don't say both words here) once in an article, you'll use the shorthand "terrorism" after that. Your approach to these searches was unscientific on several levels.--Urthogie 19:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the point. Terrorism is used more often than Islamic terrorism? I don't dispute that, but what is it supposed to demonstrate? You can't be trying to make the point that terrorism in general is more common than any one kind of terrorism in particular; that's obvious, and true of everything. Are you saying that we ought not to further characterize terrorism as Islamist, or Islamic, or Sepratist, or White-supremacist, or Christian, but should simply call all of it terrorism? Other than adding this sentence to the article, what do you want to change? I'm not necessarily opposed to adding the sentence somewhere, but I find it rather confusing. It's as if we told the reader, "Of course, wealth is unequally distributed throughout the world." That's certainly true, but including it in the introduction to an article on terrorism imposes on us an obligation to show the reader why that is relevant. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

My point is that IF you say in the article that "Islamic terrorism" is used more commonly than "Islamist terrorism" (which is true) you have to qualify that by saying that NEITHER is the most common term. I AM NOT (and I'm getting tired repeating myself) talking about "terrorism in general". Look at those searches. They are not general searches about terrorism. They are searches about suicide bombings, bin Laden, 9/11. In other words, terrorism by Islamic extremists. The surprising finding is that in pages that talk about terrorism by Islamic extremists you don't often find the specific term "Islamic terrorism". So how can we possibly write in the article that this term is used more often than that term and AVOID telling them that neither are actually used that much (to refer to terrorism by Islamic extremists) --Lee Hunter 19:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You said:"The surprising finding is that in pages that talk about terrorism by Islamic extremists you don't often find the specific term "Islamic terrorism"." As I have pointed out, though, your searches don't scientifically only include pages that talk about terrorism by Islamic extremists. The searches are so immensely crude that I'm estimating an error of way more than 50%.--Urthogie 19:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Like I said: put up or shut up. If you can do a better search, show me. Need I remind you that not so long ago you wanted to change the name of this article to "Islamic terrorism" based on nothing more than your Google searching skills. So show me how "Islamic terrorism" is used to refer to terrorism by Islamic extremists more often than simply calling it terrorism? This seems to be some kind of key point with you but you can't provide anything to back it up. Show me your searches. I'm waiting. --Lee Hunter 19:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that my searches were accepted, and not contested by anyone else. The application of the searches was contested, however, and we arrived at a compromise. In your current situation, your searches and the relevance of their findings are yet to find any consensus as being accurate. So I don't need to put up or shut up-- the burden of proof is on you to find searches that are scientifically accurate.--Urthogie 19:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You keep talking about "scientifically accurate" searches (whatever that means). Well, show me a scientifically accurate search. Or at least explain how my searches were not scientifically accurate. Once again, put up or shut up. --Lee Hunter 20:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's an incomplete list of unscientific aspects of the searches:

1. They don't use the boolean operator NOT (or a minus symbol) to exclude overlap
2. They assume that the word Islam along with the word terrorism suggests they must be talking about Islamic terrorism. However, this can be proven false by a search for ("islamic terrorism" -Islam) still coming up with half the results of "islamic terrorism"
3. They ignore the fact that after the first usage of "islamic terrorism", most papers will refer to it in shorthand as terrorism.

There are many more issues to address, but this would be a nice start. Thanks--Urthogie 20:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Your three points in order: (1) I've already shown that boolean operators are irrelevant. If anything, they only strengthen my point. See, for example, this [31]which shows that when people are talking about Bin Laden they do NOT generally use "Islamic terrorism" Show me a boolean search that doesn't prove my point. It's certainly not ... (2) I don't know how to refute this because it makes no sense. You're somehow trying to say that people use "Islamic terrorism" but they're not talking about Islam? Explain how that is even possible. Is there some kind of Islamic terrorism that doesn't involve Islam? What would that look like? (3) You forget that a hit is a page. Whether they use "islamic terrorism" or "terrorism" 50 times or one time it's still only one hit.

So is this what you mean by "unscientific"? You say that you have "many more issues" Let's see them. --Lee Hunter 20:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

1) "Bin laden" occurs more often without "terrorism" than with, so you can't use that search as an authoritative measure of this subject. 2)Perhaps you misunderstand, I was just saying that Islam and terrorism being both in a document doesn't guarantee its about "islamic terrorism." In addition, not all documents about "islamic terrorism" have the word "islam" in their contents. 3)So, a shorter phrase is used more often, I accept that. But how is that relevant-- everyone knows that parts of phrases are always used more commonly in reference to the longer phrase.

In summation, your searches aren't scientific enough to be used as verification, and the point that they attempt to prove(which I largely agree with), even if verified, is held by consensus to be irrelevant to an understanding of semantics in relation to this article.--Urthogie 21:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

(1)Now we're getting silly. Pages that mention Bin Laden but don't mention terrorism are utterly irrelevant to this discussion (i.e. when people talk about terrorism by Islamic extremists do they more often call it "Islamic terrorism" or do they avoid that term and simply call it "terrorism"?) I've shown you pretty conclusively that, in comparison to just saying "terrorism" that "Islamic terrorism" is not used very much. (2) You say that "not all documents about "islamic terrorism" have the word "islam" in their contents". Hmm. Yes, this is probably true. Meaningless. But true. (3) You write "parts of phrases are always used more commonly in reference to the longer phrase". Sure. But this doesn't have anything to do with establishing that "terrorism" (in the context of "terrorism by Islamic extremists") is being used as a shorthand for "Islamic terrorism")

You say that my searches "aren't scientific enough" but you "largely agree with" my point but somehow this is "held by consensus to be irrelevant to an understanding of semantics in relation to this article". What kind of weird bullshit statement is that? You agree with me. You can't prove me wrong. You can't provide any rational reason why my searches are unscientific. But somehow it's "irrelevant to an understanding of semantics in relation to this article." WTF does that mean?

Here's another search for you. Think of all the tens of millions of pages on Bin Laden, suicide terrorism, 9/11, Bali bombings, etc etc etc. How many would you guess use the words "islamic terrorism" in the title? The answer might surprise you. [32] --Lee Hunter 21:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Lee: Terrorism is a step remove from Islamic terrorism in the same way that school bus is a step remove from bus and high school is a step remove from school and the Earth's moon is a step remove from moon and English Canadian is a step remove from Canadian and brown shoes is a step remove from shoes and vegetarian pizza is step remove from pizza and Editor LeeHunter is a step remove from editor. All of the latter are necessarily more common than the former. This is the simplest point of collocation--indeeed of linguistic deployment in general. Do you get this point? I know you do because you're not obtuse and I think this is an unfortunate example of being belligerent because the topic creates belligerence.

Let me ask you two questions:

• Do you agree it is logically impossible that "Islamic terrorism" can be attested as much as "terrorism" itself on Google or anywhere else? For a raw search, it is logically impossible.
• If you agree to that (and I don’t see how you cannot) what the hell is the point of this argument? You want to point out that people deploy "terrorism" more than "Islamic terrorism?" Of course they do! How can they not?

In sum, the comment you want to insert is essentially meaningless. I don't know how else to say it. Marskell 22:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I have NOT given you "raw searches". I have given you carefully refined searches where one would expect to see "Islamic terrorism" appearing IF it were true that it is the specific term used in relation to terrorism by Islamic extremists. No matter how you slice, people just don't use that term (in relation to Islamic extremist terrorism) even remotely as much as they just say "terrorism". For us to suggest that "islamic terrorism" is the most common term is just flat out wrong. It ain't there. Explain to me why you hardly ever see "islamic terrorism" on pages that talk about Bin Laden (you do see plain "terrorism". Explain to me why you hardly ever see "islamic terrorism" on pages that talk about 9/11 (you do see plain "terrorism") I could go on and on. Limit your search to article titles (allintitle: terrorism Islam vs allintitle: "islamic terrorism) and you find the ratio is 17,000 to 646 How can you dispute those numbers? All you keep doing is coming back to the same ridiculous line that "of course terrorism is more common" but again and again and again I've shown that you can easily design searches that eliminate irrelevant pages. The results are indisputable. --Lee Hunter 23:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Sans quotes allintitle:islamic terrorism gives 13 000 versus allintitle:islam terrorism 17 000 versus a whopping 360 for allintitle:islamist terrorism. With quotes the numbers are 644, 737, 263, respectively.

But you know what, it's irrelevant, because the point you insist on inserting is irrelevant. Why is "of course terrorism is more common" ridiculous? It's the truth and you haven't refuted it. And it's a truth so obvious I'm just astonished here. "The common name for secondary school is high school." "No! The common name is just school!" That is ridiculous. This is a flat Earth debate Lee. Marskell 08:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You and Urthogie are the ones that have been insisting all along that the specific phrasing of "Islamic terrorism" is some kind of standard term (despite the fact that many people see it as offensive, incorrect and inappropriate). As I recall, you guys even wanted to rename the article to "Islamic terrorism" because it was supposedly the most common name. Your sole justification was by searching Google. That is why (and again I repeat myself) searching with the quoted term is the only possible way to test whether YOUR hypotheses is true or whether, because you failed to consider another possibility, it is faulty. Now you're insisting we remove the quotes so that a huge number of totally irrelevant hits show up -- Islamic Jihad and terrorism, terrorism and the Islamic world, the Islamic response to terrorism -- none of which have anything to do with the question of whether the specific term of "Islamic terrorism" is how people commonly talk about terrorism by Islamic extremists. --Lee Hunter 11:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Lee, we didn't want to call the article "terrorism"-- thats irrational. Do you? If not, please stop trying to put irrelevant stuff in the article.--Urthogie 11:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

First, as my edit summary said, I attempted in the last line of the para as it now stands to incoporate your point in a way that segued into something meaningful.

Second, please don't shift the parameters here. We argued previously (a well and truly dead horse) that Islamic was more common than Islamist. Our sole justification was not searching Google which I somewhat resent as I presented you a frank post on your usertalk explaining my logic. Insofar as we are discussing Google at present the numbers here actually back up that previous discussion as their is a definite paucity of hits for Islamist terrorism in titles.

Third, regarding searching the exact term, here are three posts [33][34] [35] where I discuss phrasology. Marskell 12:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. You're quite right. It was really Urthogie who was claiming that there is no god but Google and Urthogie is His Prophet. --Lee Hunter 12:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Google research

Generally you want to choose a search methodology before you see the results, rather than using the results to judge the methodology. Language Log writes a lot about using Google for linguistic research. These are some of the articles, if anyone is interested: [36], [37], [38]. Tnagential to the topic, but someone may find it useful. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Civility

Without singling anyone out, I wanted to draw everyone's attention to a couple of points. Among other things, WP:NPA says, "Abusive edit summaries are particularly ill-regarded." From Wikipedia:Edit summary, "Edit summaries should accurately and succinctly summarize the nature of the edit, especially if it could be controversial," and "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved." Certainly I've sometimes been guilty of that myself. On a page like this where each of us feels strongly about his position, it's especially important to be careful what we say to each other. Thanks, Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

A good point. Mea culpa. I'd also like to add, however, that this article has become a magnet for people who want to feed, in subtle and not-so-subtle ways, the anti-Muslim hysteria in the West. This makes it a very frustrating page to work on. The thing that really lights my fuse is when people insist on adding stuff that is highly suspect and then provide links to sources which clearly don't support what they've written. One of a number of recent examples: someone wrote that surveys of Muslims around the world show wide support for Osama bin Laden. The accompanying link was to an article about how Muslims in Nigeria like Bin Laden more than they do Bush (no polls or surveys were mentioned in the article). Aside from being patently dishonest, it is disrespectful to the reader and to other editors who would normally assume that if a link is provided it is to a legitimate source. --Lee Hunter 11:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.--Urthogie 11:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Is that remark consistent with WP:NPA ;) ? Palmiro | Talk 11:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It might be interesting to track the incidence of Osama as a given name, and compare the situation before and after 9/11. In horror at bin Laden's depravity, devout parents probably stopped giving their sons what had formerly been a popular name. That would be indicative of widespread opposition to terrorism. But maybe that would be original research. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This is anecdotal, but I believe Osama become the most popular newly given name in Pakistan after 9/11. Marskell 18:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[39] [40] Marskell 18:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh; well, probably my methodology is flawed. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Your sentiment was right and you didn't have a methodology as such, just making a suggestion... I'm not, and I hope in general other editors are not, glossing in favour of stuff which proves support or opposition at the exclusion of other material. If X data, comment, news release, etc. says X, we should say X. (To be POV for a minute): Bin Laden has an enormous following in the Muslim world (he wouldn't survive if he didn't) and the opposition to his behaviour is also so complete and visceral amongst Muslims that George Bush and comments on "evil" seem tame. It is 1.2 billion fucking people we're talking about... Sorry if I seem over-the-top, it's just the reductionism gets to me sometimes. And Happy Muslim New Year BTW, Marskell 22:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

nice change lee

I was thinking of amalgamating those two sections myself, but you did it. Thanks!--Urthogie 15:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Flowers for everyone. I think we can also combine the intro to Ideology and theocracy and Islamist ideology. We also need to sharpen def's in this area--"Islamist scholars," for instance. Scholars as terrorist or scholars as Western academic? The former don't consider themselves "Islamist" methinks. Marskell 15:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, great idea combining support/opposition into "attitudes toward"; I wish I'd thought of it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

two thirds quote needs to get checked

Its from an unsourced opinions column. Anyone know where we could find authoritative statistics? I highly doubt his figure.--Urthogie 16:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you asking for verification that he said it, or that he told the truth? Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I know he said it and probably thought it was true, but I'd like to see an authoritative source be referenced for statistics, rather than uninformed hearsay from opinions articles.--Urthogie 17:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That's reasonable. Until/if anyone can provide that, I'll add a request for citation. If others see it, maybe they'll be able to give us a statistic. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't actually see what relevance this has to the article. --Lee Hunter 17:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It deals with the prevalence of Islamic terrorism.--Urthogie 18:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, Tom, I think you used the fact template inappropriately. Fact templates are for things that are held by consensus to be fact but need verification. I doubt the factuality of this. I suggest we remove it until we have a verifiable figure.--Urthogie 18:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Huh; I had been using {{fact}} as a generic request for citation, but maybe that's wrong. Please correct it as you think fit. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes it can work quite well as a notice that something is dubious, as well. I wouldn't be so sure that using it to comment dubious statements is necessarily wrong; it's rather less likely to start an edit war than an immeidate deletion. Besides, what may appear dubious to one person isn't always the same for everyone: what makes you have particularly serious doubts about the factiual accuracy of this one? Palmiro | Talk 20:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

As to its relevance, it was in the article in this form for some time:

According to journalist Johann Hari, "Two-thirds of the suicide killings committed in the past two decades were not committed by Muslims."

It seemed to be understood by Hari as exculpatory, and was presented that way on this page. Nobody seemed to object until I added the numbers that made the implication clear. It remained in place with a cite request. When none was forthcoming, it was removed, sometime around the 26th. I found a citation and put it back. I wonder if the problem is the relevance or the implication. In any case, if most of us don't think it belongs in the article, take it out. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think his claim is highly suspect, bordering on the preposterous. 9/11 alone killed more civilians than all the Tamil Tiger suicide attacks put together, probably several times over. Is there any other group in the suicide bombing business these days? --Lee Hunter 20:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that most suicide bombers are Moslems? Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there any doubt? --Lee Hunter 20:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Instead of trying to be rhetorical, please present something verifiable to back your view.--TVPR 20:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

No, there isn't any doubt. Ten minutes with the database makes that pretty clear. We have a paragraph that begins, "Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, a Muslim and the general manager of Arab news channel, Al-Arabiya has said: "It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims." Actually, I see that very paragraph cites www.tkb.org, and I'd never been there before Urthogie mentioned it. Clearly I need to do more homework. I think that paragraph's final sentence, "The methodology employed by the Center is often disputed," may need to be examined.Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The relevance of the statistic to the article is definitely there. The verifiability is not. Remove it until we find a verifiable one from an authoriative source. No reason to just include what seems to be guesswork from an editorial pointing to no source. I say this because we shouldn't have such a relevant statistic on this popular website be completely unverified. --Urthogie 20:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

From Fox News(usually dont get my news from here, but it is authoritative unlike an unsourced opinions article):

"NCTC Revises, Raises Terror Incident List For 2004 Wednesday, July 06, 2005

Officials: More Terror Attacks Likely WASHINGTON — The National Counter-Terrorism Center (search) counted 3,192 terrorism incidents in 2004, according to acting director John Brennan, who released the data on Tuesday.

That's about five times as many incidents as the 651 counted using a different measure for the year. The information, updated to include data tracked until Tuesday, reveal that nearly 29,000 people were affected by terror — they were either killed, injured or kidnapped. Nineteen percent of the attacks were committed by Islamic extremists."

--Urthogie 21:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The NCT website shows less than 800 of 5400 terrorist incidents were perpetrated by Islamic groups (although there's another 3200 that are unknown or unspecified). --Lee Hunter 21:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes but you have to know that 5400 has to be subtracted by the 3228 unspecified ones-- its unfair to count those against them, as they likely include a large proportion of Islamic terrorism. Also, please note that even if you include the unknown motivations one, Islamic terrorism is responsible for the most murders and wounded of any type of terrorism.--Urthogie 21:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you've got that backwards. Its true only if you count all the unknown perpetrators as Muslim.--Lee Hunter 21:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Rationally speaking, its a mix. It is objectively true though, that of all classified terror acts, Islamic extremism is responsible for the most murders and wounded.--Urthogie 21:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That's incorrect. Secular Political/Anarchist = 21,658 Islamic = 9,127. Or to limit the results to 2005 you get Secular Political/Anarchist = 11,150 Islamic = about 2,300 or about 20% --Lee Hunter 21:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Huh?[41]

Islamic Extremist (Sunni) 2480 killed, 5699 wounded

Islamic Extremist (Unknown/Unspecified) 110 killed, 577 wounded

Islamic Extremist (Shia) 22 killed, 84 wounded

vs.

Secular Political/Anarchist 1965 killed 4001 wounded

--Urthogie 21:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok I see my mistake. I was just looking at the last column which included hostages. --Lee Hunter 23:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice find, Urthogie. tkb.org is going to take a while to explore. We could probably use and cite a published report from there, but I'm not so sure about using/citing the results of our own menu-driven analysis. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Cont'd

Re two above topics:

On Johann Hari, he strikes me as "just some wanker" and I think the para shouldn't have a place here. Where the hell does he get this stat? And can you believe that I appear to be agreeing with Urth and Lee at the same time?! I think we're presenting hearsay and it should go...

On the NCTC stats, when I first added this the intention was "complicated picture" not slam-dunk Islamic extremists are the only one's in the terrorist business. A majority of specified attacks are Secular political and a majority of specified fatalities are Islamic extremist. But a majority of both over-all are unspecified. Thus, I don't know if it's appropriate for the lead. I also don't know if anyone but the NCTC currently tracks terrorist etiology. An equivalent stat from the U.N. would be interesting. Marskell 08:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

How about I make clear that most terrorism is unspecified?--Urthogie 08:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The current edit places in context fully I hope. Also Urth, do you agree on dropping Johann Hari? Marskell 08:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes.--Urthogie 09:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The percentage of terrorism that is Islamic extremist where a terrorist type can be specified according to blahblahblah seems like a mind-numbing factoid that belongs more at the end of an article than at the beginning. --Lee Hunter 12:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Mind numbing is subjective. To me its important.--Urthogie 12:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it is. I don't have an opinion one way or the other. I just feel that you shouldn't hit the reader with factoids (especially complex statements that require explanation and sourcing) before you've even introduced the subject. --Lee Hunter 14:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I moved to the third paragraph of the lead. Marskell 14:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That works for me. --Lee Hunter 14:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, if only for unanimity:) Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Muslim support of terrorism

This section is needed in this article , and explicitely titled as such. Why? because there is ample evidence in the world today that there is a significant support for terrorism in the Muslim world. I have provided sources and unless you have been asleep over the past year you would know that this is the case. What is there now , is just saying that Muslims reject terrorism which is not entirely correct. There is a very visible percentage of Muslims who support terrorism who make headlines nearly everyday in global news media.--CltFn 04:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

There are a couple of problems here. The first is that the data (Pew Research) actually shows a mix. Some Muslims support terrorism and others (the majority) don't, so there's no reason to give it either a "support" or "oppose" headding. The second problem is that you are trying to push a logical fallacy that goes something like this: Hamas has committed terrorist acts, Palestinians supported Hamas in the recent elections, therefore Palestinians support terrorism. As the article points out, this wasn't a referendum on terrorism and there were a number of other factors besides terrorism in play. Furthermore, a follow up survey on the specific question of the use of violence, showed that the majority of Palestinians want Hamas to change their tactics. --Lee Hunter 15:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that the palestinians who voted for the radical group Hamas actually disagree with their radical agenda?--CltFn 15:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The survey that followed the election strongly suggested that people voted for Hamas, despite their tactics and agenda, not because of it. --Lee Hunter 15:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I used to hold the same view as you CltFn, but if you do some reading you'll see the middle east is so fucked up that sometimes voting for terrorists is the more peaceful option-- both in the case of israel and in palestine :(--Urthogie 16:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Not that we need this debate, but sometimes voting for the hard-ass group, person, party etc. is the only way to move a stalled process forward. See: Ariel Sharon. Marskell 16:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

See also: Menachem Begin and Yasir Arafat

--Urthogie 16:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting spin.--CltFn 17:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

CltFn, if you want the sections that way, please supply verifiable proof that they elected Hamas because of terrorism. Verifiability is the standard here, not truth.--Urthogie 17:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I hate you all!

No, no, I love you all. The page hadn't shown up on my watchlist in three days and I felt something missing in my wiki life... As soon as I hit Save page it will be back at the top of the list... Marskell 22:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Hah! Yeah, it's been very rewarding sorting this out. And I learned a lot that I didn't know about Hamas-- I used to completely hate this organization, but after doing some study I found that my own homeland has done a lot of terrorism in its early days...so i have a much wider view on the whole thing now.--Urthogie 08:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)