Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:52, 12 December 2006

Islamic extremist terrorism

Islamic extremist terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fictitious concept created by a small faction of Wikipedians in an effort to be politically correct. This concept is clearly separate from the real topic it pretends to address, Islamic terrorism. The same thing applies with Zionist political violence, which should be Zionist terrorism, and "Allegations of Israeli apartheid," which should be Israeli apartheid. KazakhPol 03:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• While some editors might suggest moving the current page to the title Islamic terrorism, there really isnt anything worth salvaging from the current, pov, uncited mess. KazakhPol 03:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep if you want to rename the page, take it to requested moves Tom Harrison 04:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Uh... except that I just said I dont want to move the page. KazakhPol 04:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The nominator seems to be making two arguments, that the page is uncited, which is absurd, and that it's POV, which he's made no evident attempt to fix or address first. There's really no valid reason presented to delete this article.--Kchase T 04:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • About 40% of the article is uncited. And for your information, I have done more to correct Misplaced Pages's information on terrorism than is required for me to open a debate on this topic, which is none at all. I suggest you take a look at Terrorism in Kazakhstan, Counter-terrorism in Kazakhstan, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, JCAM, and HT before making such bold statements. KazakhPol 05:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • If 40% is uncited, then add cite tags. Just because an article lacks citations for asserted facts does not mean that it is unverifiable, which then would prompt deletion. In any case, the fact that you've tried to make other articles neutral has no bearing on this article. Deleting for POV concerns comes only after thorough attempts have been made to make the article NPOV. Only irredeemably or inherently POV articles get deleted. The current POV tag was added 24 October and there has been no conversation related to that POV claim on the talk page. In fact, the tagger, User:Farhansher, hasn't posted to the talk page since placing the tag.--Kchase T 05:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article is well sourced and POV issues can be addressed. TSO1D 04:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per above and WP:SNOW. <<-armon->> 04:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I suggest you review SNOW. Four votes is not going to get this to end before any conversation has been had. KazakhPol 04:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Nominator is not neutral in trying to delete this article. Nomination describes the article as fictitious, which is patently untrue given the amount of cited facts presented. Said article may have some POV issues which can be corrected. The article is on an important subject matter. While the subject matter is sensitive and objectionable to certain parties, Misplaced Pages is not censored. --Eqdoktor 06:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Of the sources cited, please provide one example in which the sources refer to "Islamic extremist terrorism." Better yet, please provide one source, anywhere other than Misplaced Pages, that references "Islamist extremist terrorism" as a concept. Can you? KazakhPol 06:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Sure, footnote 24 is citing a source discussing the issue. Googling "Islamic extremist terrorism " gets me a few thousand hits (not counting Misplaced Pages and its derivatives). This story an Islamic extremist supporting terrorism. OTH, if all it is you want is "Islamic extremist terrorism" together, your barking up the wrong tree. What you seem to object to is the words "Islamic", "extremist", "terrorist" put together in describing Islamic terrorism. I suggest a name change for the article as described below. --Eqdoktor 06:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Why is there Christian extremist terrorism and Islamic extremist terrorism but no Zionist extremist terrorism? Instead, there is Zionist political violence. I see a clear double standard here. Either the Zionist article should be renamed to this convention, or the Christian and Islamic terrorism articles should be renamed to "political violence", i.e. Christian political violence and Islamic political violence. WP:NPOV applies especially to cases such as this. metaspheres 06:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no such term as "extremist terrorism." They should all be terrorism. That's what people call their acts. KazakhPol 06:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest a centralized discussion in an attempt to create a consensus for the naming of all three articles. That's what was attempted with the "...apartheid" articles, though I'm not sure how successful it was at achieving consensus.--Kchase T 06:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • This kind of thing is always prone to stubbornness, so I agree that it is probably very difficult to reach any consensus, but I believe it's still possible, though we could probably kill two birds with one stone by renaming this right here and now. Though KazakhPol's point is valid, the fact remains that we have to be consistent with NPOV, which would necessitate replacing "terrorism" with "political violence" in the article titles. The reason being that the article does not simply discuss al-Qaeda (which is universally viewed as terrorist except by its own supporters) but other groups as well. I'm not sure why KazahkPol would nominate this article for deletion when he seems only opposed to the article title. Anyway, for what its worth, I say rename to Islamic political violence. Same for the Christian one. metaspheres 06:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't think that should be discussed here. Usually renaming discussion happens on the article's talk page. If you need more input, list at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves, which is also linked above. Forcing mergers sometimes happens at AfD, but there's really no point in forcing a rename, especially with the enormous history of controversy over the name of this article. AfD, with its five day time limit, is too quick and stressful and dirty for a rename of this article, let alone a completely different one. Also look at User_talk:Kchase02#Religion_and_terrorism_pages, as KazakhPol may be starting a centralized discussion on the names of all the articles sometime soon.--Kchase T 06:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Society topics)
• AfD debates