Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic extremist terrorism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 11:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic extremist terrorism

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

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)
  • Strongly Delete I wonder these people who claim to be philosophers and intellectuals on wikipedia. Tell me, you people really dont know the hypocrisy of news media? Did you ever hear the term 'terrorism by israel'? How many times you hear the 'christian extremist terrorism' on FOX and CNN. Does one FOX, CBC and CNN comprise all the media of the world. You Americans please come out of this Bubble created by few news channels. There is more to the world than a couple of hypocrite American channels.
  • Now people will think why am I criticizing in this way. My point is, there is no such thing called 'islamic terrorism' or 'islamic extremist terrorism' in under the definition which is being provided by wikipedians here. How many countries North Korea or Syria or Iran have ruined??? NONE. How many countries American regime ruined? Dozen. How many people killed by American regime? Millions. Even then there is not even a single day when the channels dont yell the self created term 'islamic terrorism'. So my point is, the same is happening on the wikipedia articles. Muslims just cant defend by correct editing because very very minor percentage of Muslims have access to the internet. Any website goes to number one in the ranke which is used by Americans , that does not comply that it is number one in the world too. Please see the www.msn.com ranking on www.alexa.com [1]. Its number second, but in non-American and non-Eu countries, nobody even thinks to visit that site. So to be fair please give value to the limited number of disagreeing people who come from technologically less developed areas. Please see this and [this refernce before reacting to my post. VirtualEye 12:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep if you want to rename the page, take it to requested moves Tom Harrison Talk 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 Wikipedia'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)
      • I suggest you review this. There's also the current talk page as well as four archives of "conversation" about it. In fact, I've renamed it myself. The problem is, you've put the article up for deletion on the basis that you object to it's title. Not a valid reason, so it won't happen. <<-armon->> 12:23, 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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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)
      • Comment. I don't think the article is supposed to be about extremist terrorism but terrorism by Islamic extremists, highlighting the fact that only a minority viewpoint within the religion have engaged in terrorism. If called Islamic terrorism it would suggest the entire religion engages in or supports terrorism. -WJBscribe (WJB talk) 12:11, 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 Wikipedia: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)
          • The AfD process is not a vote, but a discussion by which to reach consensus. Often times the result is to merge or rename an article, rather than to delete. See for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethnic politics of Khuzestan which resulted in a rename to Politics of Khuzestan. This is as good a place as any to discuss and the issue is clear cut and simple. Either you are in favor of "terrorism" or you are not, and five days is more than enough time to reach such a consensus. If consensus can't be reached within five days, it won't be reached in five weeks or five months. metaspheres 08:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
            • You'd be surprised how many AfD's can't reach consensus in five days and go through relisting, deletion review, mediation, etc. Anyway, it's unusual for a rename to happen at AfD, in part because the forum isn't necessary for that purpose. Just look at the numbers below "move" that you see at User:Dragons_flight/AFD_summary/All. Frankly, saying it's as "clear cut and simple" as whether you favor "terrorism" in the title or don't is reducing the issue to a vote. My experience through hundreds of AfD discussions has taught me that a simple vote isn't usually helpful for consensus building.--Kchase T 09:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Please do not move comments. As I have stated, the AfD process is a discussion, not a vote. metaspheres 09:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
            • In what earthly respect are you claiming I'm treating it as a vote?--Kchase T 09:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. No valid reason provided for deletion. I don't see why this nominator thinks that this is a "fictitious concept created by a small faction of Wikipedians". If you don't like the title, move it. If you think it is uncited, tag it with {{fact}}, {{verify}} templates. If it is POV, tag it with {{pov}}. utcursch | talk 07:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a well sourced article covering a sensitive and controversial topic with much skill. This is not a fictitious concept- it simply address the issue of terrorism by Muslim extremists.-WJBscribe (WJB talk) 12:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable and referenced. //Dirak 12:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Enigma059 13:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it is notable and referenced, it needs to be claened upRaveenS 14:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Move to Islamist terrorism. I've been always supporting this title. It certainly has more political connotations; which what the article is set for. Islamism is not Islam. Extremism is not fanaticism nor it is radicalism. More sources and references to be added. POV can be sorted out by discussions on the talk page. -- Szvest Wiki me up ® 14:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment Islamist terrorism, though politically correct, is not factually correct. Does wikipedia strive to be politically correct or accurate. You can't be both, at least not in this case. All news organizations on television call it Islamic terrorism, Islamic Extremism, Islamic Fascism. Nobody calls it Islamist terrorism. For example, PBS calls is Islamic terrorism. BBC calls it Muslim terrorism. MSNBC calls it Islamic terrorism. The New York Times calls it Islamic radicalism. If we are to be factually accurate, we have to call it Islamic terrorism, and not Islamist.--Sefringle 21:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, rename metaspheres is right on. These articles should be kept. But there is no justification whatsoever, other than home bias, for naming the "Christian", "Zionist" and "Islamic" forms differently. "Political violence" is probably more appropriate than "terrorism", but the most fundamental thing in keeping with Wikipedia's NPOV and WP:BIAS is that they be labelled the same. Anything else is hyprocrisy. Akihabara 14:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment on rename. If these pages are to be renamed I propose the format: "terrorism by X'" or "political violence by X". Otherwise it reads as if one can commit acts of terrorism/political violence in a Christian or Islamic manner. The religion is relevant to the cause the terrorists are attempting to advance, not the acts of terrorism per se. An act of Christian terrorism would be in substance the same as an act of Islamic terrorism, but with a different objective. -WJBscribe (WJB talk) 14:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
re comment Actually that was the point. However, titles like that (by X) are too heavy. I'd support Akihabara suggestion using political violence as we have a guideline (Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism). -- Szvest Wiki me up ® 14:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, no move. Articles like this make WP superior to many other info sources, even if they're controversial and under contention. My OED (Concise, 11th Ed.) defines "Islamist" as both n. and adj. but moving pages just for a usage of similar words is trite and disruptive. I also find the grounds for deletion to be FAR from neutral. Better to work on the article to make it concise, NPOV, and well cited than to complain. Deletion would IMHO be akin to the "airplane into building" method of political discourse. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 15:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; I wouldn't have a problem with this being renamed Islamic terroism, but there is no logical reason to remove this article. --Mhking 16:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Terrorism or Political Violence Islamic Political Violence. --Strothra 17:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    Comment - It's too long to be merged w/ another article. -- Szvest Wiki me up ® 17:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • comment This page has been renamed several times as consensus has shifted. I suggest we decide here only to delete or not, and decide at requested moves about what to call it this quarter. Tom Harrison Talk 19:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The topic is cited to multiple independent, reliable, and verifiable sources, along with sources of less quality. It is a function of editing to sort out and remove any nonreliable sources, and to remove any POV pushing. The topic is clearly of considerable importance. Edison 19:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keeep The topic is scholarly and has overwhelming evidence.--Patchouli 21:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep & rename. Change it to Islamic terrorism.--71.107.224.142 21:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Rename it if you want but there's no way it should be deleted. --BillyTFried 22:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 00:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename to Religious motivated terrorism (islam) Alf photoman 00:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Merge with religious violence and political violence per my discussion on the talk page (Who are these people that just randomly came into this AFD? How come they didn't look at the talk page first?) --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 03:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Islamic extremist terrorism is a major contribution to world affairs in the modern world. It diserves an article.--Sefringle 03:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as per svest. TruthSpreaderTalk 04:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete hate text. Grace Note 07:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per utcursh and sefringle. Rename to Islamic terrorism, use less euphemistic titles for similar articles as per nom. Arrow740 10:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Definitely a valid topic. The politically correct at work again. We cannot simply turn a blind eye to what's happenning in the world. What hate text? The real hate is in the minds of those terrorists, there is no need to be nitpicking over this. Could be renamed to "Islamist terrorism" however. "Islamic terrorism" might not be right, however, the word "Islamist" has been used generally to refer to the earthly politics motivated by Islam. In any case, even if the content was merged with another article, the text "Islamic terrorism" deserves its own article, at least to refer to the concept and notion as referred by many in the world media. Baristarim 13:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • By the way, to reply to what someone said above about "western oriented blah blah". I am Turkish and I feel that it definitely deserves to be there and I never watch FOX News. I generally watch French, Turkish and American TV, and it is used quite often. My country has also suffered from Islamist terrorism, and it is definitely not Orientalistic to say that. I am an atheist, however.. Baristarim 14:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Article is an unmaintainable, unencyclopedic mess that lumps in a vast array of unrelated conflicts and events, most of which are essentially political and territorial in nature. The criteria for inclusion in the article seems to be "anything violent involving a Muslim and/or Arab". --Lee Hunter 17:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The above also applies to the The Crusades, but with Christians (and over several hundred years ago); and yet there is no dispute over the existence of the Crusades page. I believe maintainability is not an issue as it can be controlled with present Wikipedia policies, the same with the "unencyclopedic" concern. --Eqdoktor 06:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentThe crusades deals with a specific historical event (actually a series of events) which is very well defined. "Islamic extremist terrorism" is whatever any editor wants to make it of it no matter how ludicrous including at various times, believe it or not, the Barbary Pirates and the PFLP (Marxist-Leninist organization). Recently there's been an endless revert war over whether to include an enormous chunk of quoted material from a US university student (reputedly a heavy stoner) who went nuts and injured some people with his car. Since the guy claims to be a Muslim and he claims that God told him to do it, therefore it's "Islamic extremist terrorism". I argued against it till I was blue in the face and finally gave up in disgust. There is NO need for this article. It's just a place for people to vent their paranoid fantasies about Islam. --Lee Hunter 15:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Paranoid fantasies??? Well, My city was blasted in the middle four times by a bunch of Islamist terrorists, and there was nothing paranoid about that monsieur. So cut down on the politically correct please. They refer to themselves as jihadists, most of the world refers to themselves as such. It is pretty arrogant to say "oh, but they are not real muslims, a "real" muslim wouldn't do that!" That's arrogant and illogical. In that case we will never be able to use adjectives anymore in any language "oh, he is not fat, he is just overweight!" Whatever.. Islamic/Islamist terrorism exists, so just get used to it. Baristarim 19:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
There are articles about Al Qaeda, Istanbul bombing, as there should be. This article will never be anything but a Frankenstein monster sewn together from parts that don't belong. --Lee Hunter 10:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete According to VirtualEye and KazakhPol above. Mak82hyd 18:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Valid concept, well researched and documented. --Gabi S. 21:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: This is an excellent well researched article with tonnes of useful information. I'm surprised it was nominated for deletion. --Matt57 23:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Sorry KazakhPol, this will end up as a keep as well. --Matt57 03:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The article could use some work but there's no question that the subject is encyclopedic. GabrielF 06:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There are two related articles: Militant Islam and Islamic extremist terrorism. Because there is not much overlap between the two, I think they should remain. However, it could be better to merge them into the first one (which should be heavily edited anyway). --Gabi S. 16:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Is Al Qaeda Islamic? Are they terrorists? Is 60% of world terrorism committed by Islamic groups? When Muslims stop committing the majority terrorist acts, there will no longer be a need for this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jboyler (talk • contribs) 21:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
    Comment When Muslims stop committing the majority terrorist acts... Do you mean Islamists? -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 10:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, and I won't mind renaming into Islamist terrorism or Islamist political violence (both now redirect here). ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up, add more references etc. to the extent necessary. I think the naming issue requires further discussion. 6SJ7 05:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename terrorism already implies extremism. gidonb 11:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • On my talk page, KazakhPol asked me what I prefer as an alternative title. It is a tough cut, but I think Islamist terrorism is the best pick. gidonb 17:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename, but don't delete on the basis of one easily alterable aspect, TewfikTalk 16:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment replying to KazakhPol's question on my Talk: since 'extremist' refers to the the ideology and not the act (unless there were to be an "Islamic moderate terrorism"), Islamist would seem to best fit for renaming, though a further discussion on its Talk would be the way to go in this regard. Cheers, TewfikTalk 16:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep sourced, encyclopaedic. Renaming isn't really an issue for AfD - editors can work that out at the page. WilyD 18:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It is a violation of NPOV for Wikipedia to call anything terrorist. We can have sentences like "X claims that organization Y is terrorist...", but not something like "Organization Y is a terrorist group founded by Z". Terrorist is a pejorative term, and unacceptable as a classification in a encyclopedia. It would be akin to saying "Prominent niggers include: ..." in the introduction to the article on Nigger. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 00:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
???? You have to do your homework better. "Terrorism" is a legally defined term by a United Nations Convention. It is not a pejorative term, it is in the same category as "murder", "rape", "theft", as defined by laws. Calling someone a murderer if he has been convicted of murder is not pejorative. There is a distinct definition of the word "terrorism" (see the relevant UN Convention) and those who commit terrorism are terrorists. It is as simple as that. I had enough of this politically correct bruhaha jumping into a wide range of articles and pretending that they know better as if the others are not aware of the bulk of human knowledge and civilization. Terrorist is not the same thing as nigger, since there is no such act "to nigger" - if there was such an act, then the people who niggerded would be niggers. However terrorism is an act, and people who "terrorize" (as defined legally by the UN) are terrorists. Baristarim 09:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
You're missing the point. Using the United Nations Convention's definition of the term "terrorism" is a violation of NPOV. This is Wikipedia, an international encyclopedia that should not adhere to any points of views, and in this case the view of the United Nations. I am arguing this point because if we use "terrorist" or "terrorism" the way you intend to do so, it will contradict our very own article on Terrorism which discusses this in depth. Also, "murder", "rape", and "theft", are not internationally agreed upon crimes. In one country, an action can be "murder", while in another "manslaughter", while in yet another "justifiable homicide". by calling someone's actions murder, Wikipedia is promoting a POV, which is a violation of NPOV policy. Same goes for "rape", "sexual assault", etc. We can, however, say that "according to the UN, these are acts of terrorism" etc., but if we go and say "This is an act of terrorism", then that is impermissible as content for an article. This has nothing to do with political correctness, and has all to do with Wikipedia policy. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 22:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, please see Please see Wikipedia's policy on words to avoid. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 23:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I know that policy very well. It says words to "avoid" and not "banned" words. It can be used if there is an overwhelming concensus. What you are doing is wikilawyering, I am afraid. Because you very well know that they are terrorists, and the only argument that can be brought to the table is that there is a wiki guideline that says "avoid this word if possible". It doesn't say "don't use" or "it is forbidden to use".. Baristarim 06:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • As of now there are 31 keep votes, 5 deletes, and I'm pretty sure someone said merge... so this looks like another stunning victory for KazakhPol! KazakhPol 06:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: per Eqdoktor and, articles about terrorist or terrorist attacks that carried out against innocent civilians should be kept in Wikipedia, but according to the WP:NPOV. ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ Walkie-talkie 12:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keepper points made above--Boris Johnson VC 16:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This article labels groups with widely differing agendas as 'Islamic terrorists', with the reason that they say that they work in the name of Islam. There are an enormous number of groups who could be defined as 'terrorist' - it just means that they use 'terror' to further their goals. Classifying these by religion would be akin to classifying the Nazis as 'Christian terrorists'. Hut 8.5 17:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Nominator seems to think their perception that an article is POV is grounds for deletion, even though WP:DEL says a perceived POV is not grounds for deletion, but rather tagging the offending passages with {npov}. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minors detained in the global war on terror. -- Geo Swan 22:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Move -- to "Allegation of Islamic extremist terrorism" or simply "Allegation of Islamist terrorism". I have no problem with saying al-Qaeda is terrorist, but this article puts Hamas and Hezbollah as "Islamic extremist terrorists", which is strongly POVish. These organizations are democratically elected to the legistlature of their respective nations and are commonly considered (in thier home countries)as "resistance" organizations not as "extremist terrorist". That they are "terrorist" is an allegation.Bless sins 00:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Firstly, it doesn't matter what I think, per WP:OR. It matters what the people who elect these organizations to the government think. It matters what the tens of millions of residents of the Arab World think. Just because the US, EU and Israel say "xyz" is a terrorist doesn't make "xyz" a terrorist. Secondly there is a list of massacres committed by Israel, including those comitted this year in Lebanon and Gaza. Yet there is no such thing as Israeli war crimes. Since there is only Accusations against Israel of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada, and there should only be Accusations of Islamic extremist terrorism. Bless sins 17:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually there is no "list of massacres committed by Israel." The acts committed by Israel are disputed, while Hamas and Hezbollah are proud of their suicide attacks etc., and believe that they are just. TewfikTalk 06:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Israel would dispute black was white if it felt the need. That's kind of the point of NPOV, old son. Grace Note 08:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • ...while Hamas and Hezbollah are proud of their suicide attacks etc., and believe that they are just." We are not determining what side is "right" - merely presenting facts. TewfikTalk 09:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Aha.. Why are people pretending not to have "common sense" and the basic rules of the English language? Those who are committing their acts with the intent of terrorizing civilians are terrorists. I mean, is this so hard to understand? It doesn't even matter one bit what they believe or feel. This is the BASIC tenets of English language, your intent is to terrorize? Then that's terrorism. Quite simple really. It is definitely political correctness to say "oh well, he murdered that guy, but we cannot call him a murderer; we have to say "he was convicted of murder by this court". WP:ENGLISH also applies in Wikipedia I am afraid. There are those who have been repeatedly called terrorists, and they do act to terrorize others, therefore they are terrorists. You honestly cannot expect others to say "September 11 was a militant attack committed by those who have been labelled as terrorists by X, Y and Z"!! It doesn't matter that those wackos falsely believed that they would be banging 40 virgins after they exploded into thousand pieces :) They did it to terrorize others, ergo they are terrorists. Baristarim 23:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - and do not move - this is good stuff - and belongs where it is larryfooter
  • Keep per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly Keep - the name change is not as important as the content. Radical Islam is a current event and people should know the facts about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kwikiman (talk • contribs) 20:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC).
  • Lee Hunter is absolutely right, you know. If there was an admin with the balls, he/she would delete this on the grounds that it's an egregious breach of the policies here, regardless how many vote for it. Articles that are titled with epithets should either be about the epithet or have their titles and tenor changed to something more neutral. And an epithet is what this is. It's a ragbag term for any act of violence that a/ we disapprove of, b/ is done by Muslims, c/ whose views we can characterise as extreme (while ignoring that they would characterise our secularism as equally extreme). We do not call the bombing of Baghdad "Christian extremist terrorism" even though Mr Bush a/ is a Christian, b/ is intolerant of solutions to governance that he doesn't approve of and c/ has ordered the destruction of civilian infrastructure and acts that he knew would kill civilians, among other acts of violence. Grace Note 08:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.