Talk:John McCain 2008 presidential campaign

"Jihadist" or "Islamic extremist"

In the cite, "jihadist" appears only as a quote from Raisman. So far, SITE has not sent me any info at all on this person, by the way. Has anyone else gotten any info? In any case, "jihadist" is considered offensive to American Moslems. [1] Collect (talk) 12:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

So, the one group of experts who actually examined the websites used the more precise and accurate word; we should use that word too. "Jihadist" is not considered offensive; it is a translation of the word mujahideen; would you prefer we used "Mujahideen reaction"? It is more offensive to pretend this is a general reaction of Islamist extremists (who might include Louis Farrakhan or Ali al-Sistani) rather than a reaction specifically of those Islamist extremists who consider themselves holy warriors in the military sense. It is the latter that are generally called "jihadists" in the counterterrorism literature and scholarship. csloat (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

So far, SITE has not answered my query as to how Raisman is an expert. You, of course, assert their expertise without any basis. "Mujahideen" is, of course, an entirely different term which specifically refers to "Muslim guerrilla fighters, esp. in Afghanistan and Iran." per RHD and is a straw man here. The current general terminology, by the way, is "Islamic extremists." That you assert that "Jihadist" is not offensive is interesting considering the number of sites which say that it is offensive. Can you explain why all the Muslims are wrong about it being offensive? Note that the EU also holds this same position. Collect (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Your alternative has been proven by your own source to be offensive. It would seem to be necessary to find a third alternative or other reasons for inclusion of the two. Anarchangel (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Collect's argument (at his first post) is actually quite convincing, convincing enough for me to change my mind [IMO jihadist was my preferred term]. By reading his source I learned about hirabah which would be the politically correct definition but unfortunately not widely known and there is no English synonym for it either. But how about "Islamic extremist groups reaction"? It is IMO non-controversial, non-offensive and also a little bit more specific. Any thoughts?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly when I first read the text. I thought Hirabah a very good choice. After reading what Csloat said below, I realized I had let myself become enamored of a new possibility without considering the ramifications. We don't even know what Hirabah means, verbatim or in context. And we only have the cited source's word that it is appropriate. Anarchangel (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

CSloat, if you want to convince people you need to provide sources. Asserting something with no proof isn't going to get you far. I'm with Collect on this, jihadist does appear to be pejorative to Muslims. I think terrorist is the best possible term, but for some reason Wikipedia style guidelines consider this a word that conveys viewpoint. Therefore, I think the closest word that can be used to describe these people is Islamic extremist. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 18:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(1) Your inquiry to SITE is totally immaterial on this page. Please see WP:NOR. If, after your inquiries to SITE, you find enough material to publish an article of your own in a reliable source, perhaps someone will consider it worth citing here. Otherwise your speculation about SITE and Raisman is just a red herring. (2) Collect's source is interesting but it is not relevant here - I was hard pressed to find any mention of John McCain in that article. "Jihadist" is the word used in virtually all counterterrorism literature, whether or not some Muslims find it offensive. You really don't need me to provide sources for this as simple google scholar and google books searches will show you; if you had even a passing familiarity with this literature at all you would realize how ridiculous your claim sounds. Again, it would be silly to imply, as you seem to want to, that Farrakhan and al-Sistani (or even Hamas) endorsed McCain in the election. It is jihadists associated with terrorism (and more specifically with al-Qaeda) who thought McCain would be better for them, and we should be precise about that. (3) jihadist is a translation of mujahid; the term is used in a positive sense by jihadists themselves to mean something like "warrior," but in counterterrorism literature it is used in a descriptive sense to describe that subset of Islamist extremists who are committed to a military interpretation of jihad. It is a subset of extremists, not including the overwhelming majority who are not committed to such an interpretation. Again, if you had any familiarity whatsoever with this literature you would recognize that your comments are patently absurd. csloat (talk) 21:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Being critical of sourced material is more than warranted. It's called cross referencing, and it's a step that many Wikipedia editors skip. If credentials on a person are missing, then regardless of where they're cited it's appropriate to be skeptical. Just because a source is deemed reliable doesn't mean it can't be biased.
2. There's a book called Nigger, but that doesn't suddenly make the term any less offensive to people. A majority of the literature also refers to Islamic extremist as terrorists, but that doesn't make the use of the term on Wikipedia appropriate either even though I personally disagree.
3. A lot of black people refer to themselves by a certain racial epithet, but that doesn't make it okay for everybody else to refer to them by said epithet, it doesn't mean them referring to themselves by said epithet isn't offensive, and it doesn't mean that all black people are okay with the epithet. Since most Muslims believe that Islamic extremists exploit their faith and that characterizing terrorist acts as "jihad" is offensive, then it's not appropriate to use the term jihadist. In light of this information, I don't see how any decent person who knows about this could continue to use the term on Wikipedia, even if it may not seem so scathing to them.

And I cannot stress this enough, expressing that you have knowledge that others don't is completely not constructive on Wikipedia. The only thing comments like if you had even a passing familiarity with this literature at all you would realize how ridiculous your claim sounds and if you had any familiarity whatsoever with this literature you would recognize that your comments are patently absurd do is make you come off as pretentious. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 00:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression you were taking this discussion seriously; if the best you can do is compare "jihadist" -- used by most if not all respected scholars in the field of counterterrorism studies -- to the N-word, you clearly aren't taking this discussion seriously. Being critical of sourced material is, as you know, not the issue here at all -- the issue is with original research being done to try to undermine the credibility of a source who has been treated as credible by the Associated Press, Washington Post, New York Times, and even Fox News. And as for the term "jihadist," if you don't believe my claims about the counterterrorism literature, click the google links I gave you above and start reading rather than repeating the same old whine about me "expressing that I have knowledge that others don't." I don't have any secret knowledge; this literature is all very public and very easy to access and understand. Try a book like this one or this one or this one or this one or this one if you want a general introduction to the topic that specifically uses the term "jihadists" in this descriptive manner, and you're too lazy to look through the hundreds of books that pop up on the google links I gave you the last time you complained about my sources. I'm not trying to be pretentious or to criticize your intelligence, but I think it is anti-intellectual to use your ignorance of a field of scholarship as a justification for ignoring the specific arguments against a specific word choice. Again, to be clear, my argument is that "Islamic extremists" is a much larger and vaguer category than "jihadists," and the published information is clearly talking about the latter category. csloat (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

a.) Yes, being critical of sourced material is at issue here. You're claiming that we should consider Raisman an expert when there are no credentials available simply because he's quoted from several sources. Reliable sources CAN be wrong and biased, so simply always taking their word for it is dangerous. By your rationale, material about the Secret Service blaming Sarah Palin for threats on Barack Obama would be in the Sarah Palin article simply because the claim was made in some U.K. and Australian newspapers and blogs. However, actually analyzing these articles proves that the newspapers were projecting their own conclusions onto the Secret Service. Ultimately, the material is not in the Sarah Palin article because even though the source was reliable, the article itself was absolute trash.

b.) You completely dodged the point of my analogy. Just because "jihadist" is used in counterterrorism literature doesn't automatically make it appropriate. "Terrorist" is also used in all counterterrorism literature but that term has been deemed inappropriate for Wikipedia. Jihadist is considered an offensive term, and there is lengthy explanation for this, so the term should not be used here. And I think you have your terminology slightly mixed up. "Islamic extremist" and "jihadist" are identical groups, both of which use terror and other violent tactics to achieve their goals. Islamist is the superset for Islamic extremists/jihadists. Their belief is that Islam is not only religion but a form of government, but many people in this group do not support using terror and violence.

c.) I'm not trying to be pretentious or to criticize your intelligence, but I think it is anti-intellectual to use your ignorance of a field of scholarship as a justification for ignoring the specific arguments against a specific word choice is a pretentious comment and like I said earlier, doesn't accomplish anything. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 16:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(a) I am not claiming we should consider Raisman an expert. The Washington Post, like the New York Times' and Associated Press are advancing that claim, and the only claim you have against it is speculation. This is not some Australian tabloid we are talking about; it is a series of reports carried in multiple organs of the mainstream press.

(b) You are again making a ludicrous argument. Some people may consider "jihadist" offensive, but Wikipedia does not, and when discussing this particular issue it is far more precise and accurate a term (as I have shown again and again, and you have ignored).

(c) Stop taking my words out of context; it is annoying and it doesn't accomplish anything. If you find yourself unable to respond to the arguments, perhaps you might consider the possibility that you are incorrect. csloat (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: Wikipedia can help you understand the term jihadist if you're not willing to look at any of the multiple respected citations I provided above. csloat (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

a.) Yes, you are claiming that he's an expert, and for some reason you're resistant to fact checking his expertise. If you'd read the article more carefully, which I suggested long ago, you'd see that nowhere in the Washington Post article, which is the current cited material, is Raisman attributed as an expert. And for some reason you continue to ignore the possibility that main stream media can be wrong. You've heard of retractions, haven't you?

b.) And you again completely dodged the point of the analogy. And true to form, you don't provide any sources for your claims.

c.) I haven't taken a single word out of context, the pretentiousness of your words that I've quoted speaks for itself. And I'm not even sure how to respond to your claim that your past pretentious statements are "arguments". I mean... what? Honestly, where do you get that? It's not an argument to say if you had even a passing familiarity with this literature at all you would realize how ridiculous your claim sounds, it's a pretentious statement. There's no point/counterpoint.

d.) Yet again, completely avoiding the issue. Do you just selectively choose points to argue and then just act like the other points where never brought up? You neglect to point out that Jihadist is a redirection and that the term "jihadist" is never even used in the article. And you completely ignore how "Islamic extremist" and "jihadist" are terms used to describe the same type of person. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 19:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(a) Please read WP:NOR if you have trouble understanding my "resistance to checking" anything outside of what is published in reliable sources. I'm not going to keep debating the point as I don't think you are being serious here -- nobody is suggesting including the sentence "Raisman is an expert" anywhere in the article; the only relevant issue is that all the papers who have quoted him or SITE institute clearly respect their expertise (and have done so for years). Whether I prove to your satisfaction or not that he is an expert is totally irrelevant; your doubts about his expertise are original research that does not belong on Wikipedia.

(b) I provided multiple sources above which you have ignored. I have also provided several arguments by example that you have ignored. Please stop lying about this. If you're too lazy to click a link or read a book, try to bow out of the argument gracefully rather than continuing to embarrass yourself.

(c) I don't really care if you think I am being pretentious. All I was saying is that my point is quite obviously substantiated by an even cursory glance at the literature. You accused me of feigning some kind of secret knowledge, and I disputed that, pointing out that the information is very easy to find, and even gave you multiple links to various sources from which to begin your education. Instead you continue to assert your own ignorance as a reason for ignoring the reliable sources that exist on the topic. And then you call me "pretentious" as if that is a justification for continuing your ignorance on the issue. Look, if you don't want to study this topic that's fine with me, but then you shouldn't be pretending that your POV carries any weight if you're not even willing to click on a link, much less read a book.

(d) Umm, I didn't "neglect to point out" that jihadist was a redirection; that was my freakin point. "Jihadist" is an attempt to translate "mujahid," a word widely used by jihadists to describe themselves. And I have already shown that your claim that jihadist is interchangeable with "Islamic extremist" is patently false. Jihadist is a subset of the larger category. I made that resoundingly clear above but you keep ignoring it. csloat (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

a.) So you didn't re-read the Washington Post article, did you? And you're calling me lazy. Copy and paste where they call him an expert in that article. They use the term "expert" several times, but I'd like for you to find when they call Raisman an expert, as you've claimed in your last two replies, and copy and paste that text here.

b.) You continue to completely dodge the point, it's amazing. There's nothing relevant to even reply to here.

c.) It's not a matter of thinking, they are pretentious. Here, this should help you out. In fact, nearly all of your point c was pretentious.

d.) So your point is that "jihadist" is okay on Wikipedia because there's an article for it which redirects to another article which never even uses the term? Really? You're gonna go with that?

e.) A problem that you continue to have is thinking that just because you say something without proof that it's true. Prove that Islamic extremists are a superset to jihadists. Know what? I'll save you time, check out this article: Islamic Extremism. Oh wait, they say that the terms are interchangeable. That's not very helpful for your viewpoint at all, is it? --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 20:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(a) I don't need to re-read the article to refute a red herring. It doesn't matter whether they call Raisman an "expert" because that's irrelevant to anything I'm suggesting changing in the article.

(b) No, you're the one dodging the point.

(c) Who cares what you think is pretentious? If you have nothing to add to the article or discussion, we should drop this.

(d) You are welcome to re-read my comments if you wish to understand what I was actually pointing out. Suffice to say you are completely misrepresenting my point.

(e) I have already responded to this multiple times; showing that Wikipedia is inaccurate elsewhere is not helpful to any point you are trying to make.

You seem to have stopped discussing the actual arguments about the article in favor of red herrings about Raisman or "pretentiousness", so I'm probably not going to continue a meaningless back-and-forth with you. csloat (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

a.) So you didn't re-read the article, huh. Or... you did and you found that the Washington Post never claims that Raisman is any sort of expert, so you're calling it a "red herring" instead of admitting that you may have actually been wrong about something. Avoidance will get you nowhere.

b-e.) More avoidance. My arguments still stand. If you actually plan on addressing them, then feel free to at your leisure, but until then I can't really add anything. And if you reply is going to be "I have more knowledge than you do" then save your breath because that, like avoidance, will get you nowhere. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 15:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

WP official policy is to avoid pejoratives. The Islamic communities in the US, Canada and Europe have convinced the governments that "jihadist" is, indeed, pejorative. There is very little to discuss unless you can show that "jihadist" is not pejorative, which I doubt. see also WP:WTA Thanks! Collect (talk) 01:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You must be kidding me. You're asserting without evidence to know what the entire Muslim communities of two nations and a continent believe? Or what they have convinced those governments?? The very same governments that publish books like the last one I linked to, which uses the word "jihadist"?? Finally, it doesn't matter if you think you can show that "jihadist" is pejorative; I have pointed to an entire respected body of scholarly and policy literature that uses this term consistently. And then you cite WTA -- can you please cite the exact paragraph on WP:WTA that explains the proper use of the term "jihadist"? Please stop raising phony arguments and explain why you think "extremist" is better when I have shown that "jihadist" is more accurate, more specific, and more consistent with the literature in this area. csloat (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

US and EU positions: [2] "The paper emphasizes that the recommendations do not constitute official government policy. Instead, they represent guidance from influential Muslim leaders who met with Homeland Secretary Michael Chertoff in May 2007 to discuss ways that the Muslim community can help the department prevent the violent radicalization of Muslims.

The paper suggests that government officials may want to avoid using theological terminology altogether." Jihadwatch is an unabashedly anti-Muslim organization, by the way, which claims there are 650 million jihadists. [ http://www.popularalliance.org/content/view/81/2/] The EU goes further and would even bar "Islamic extremist" which, IMHO, goes too far. popularalliance is also anti-Islamic. (Which is why I chose to use cites from specifically anti-Muslim sources). So we have two really, really anti-Islamic sittes raging against the governments which think that using more moderate language is rational. For some reason I tend not to follow their lead. Collect (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

A warning from homeland security that they have been advised by "influential Muslim leaders" not to use the term does not represent official US policy and your quote even says so. I'm not sure why you think using racist websites enhances your credibility. My sources were culled from the mainstream of terrorism scholarship, where the use of the word is common. I am not suggesting we quote jihadwatch or other bogus sites here at all. A simple google scholar search shows the term in use by such respectable and non-racist organizations such as the Carnegie foundation and the New York Times. And of course the whole question at hand here focuses on the Washington Post using the term, not Robert Spencer. This whole argument about offensiveness is a red herring, of course, since using "extremist" would be even more objectionable as it paints a large number of non-warlike Muslim organizations with the same brush as terrorists who have openly declared war on the US. csloat (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe no one noticed this: On 18 Nov, Collect wrote:
"In the cite, "jihadist" appears only as a quote from Raisman. So far, SITE has not sent me any info at all on this person, by the way. Has anyone else gotten any info? In any case, "jihadist" is considered offensive to American Moslems. [3]

The cited article actually decries the use of the adjective Islam to modify extremist, terrorist, etc, more than it does Jihad, in that it mentions the former first, foremost, and at greater length. Although Islam is used, the combination with the words it lists would require making an adjective of Islam to create Islamic. And although it may have only been for space reasons, the article in fact literally says nothing whatsoever about the noun 'Jihadist'. I would expect this would also be objectionable; the point is that the amount of research you apparently have done on this subject would not allow you to be an expert in the opinion of the Muslim community.

"The truth is that when you add the word Islam in front of words like fascist, extremist, terrorist, etc. Or, when you allow criminals like Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda to redefine the words Jihad and Shahed, then you are giving the impression to all the millions of Muslims in the world that you think that OBL and al Qaeda are correct in their attempts to give an Islamic justification for their criminal actions. They are not correct. Terrorism is not Jihad, it is Hirabah. A martyr is a person who dies in the cause of God, most certainly not someone who dies committing an act of terrorism." -The American Muslim, from the cite above

To the extent that the argument for 'Islamic extremists' has thus far been based on the assumption that it isn't offensive and 'Jihadist' is, the argument is, well, you tell me, I would say, 'negated'. Anarchangel (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

To the extent that "Islamic extremist" is a direct categorization, and that "Jihadist" uses a term of specific meaning within Islam, and that the use of "Jihadist" is considered offensive, and that "Islamic extremist" does not use religious terminoology -- the choice is clear. Note, by the way, that I have not used "Islamic terrorist" nor "Islamic fascist" in any posts, and I would consider such to be offensive on their face. There is, however, reason to call some people "extremists" and that does not appear to be a rational issue. Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Jihadist reaction merged with World opinion

I merged the current Jihadist reaction subsection with the World opinion subsection. The original material was kept intact, however I did add a sentence to the beginning in order to better tie it to the topic of the subsection. Judging by the responses to my request for opinions on this matter that I issued a week ago, it sounds like this is a welcome and acceptable edit. It also appears that there's a consensus on the text of the contribution, which I'm glad to see has emerged after constructive discussion and compromise.

To reiterate, I believe putting this material in an existing section/subsection rather than its own section is necessary to address notability and weight concerns. I do not believe this event was notable enough to warrant its own section. Essentially this was an estimation of opinion, no more or less significant than other opinion polls taken throughout the campaign, which is why I believe it belongs in a section devoted to global opinions. I believe including this in a section about opinions also addresses an early concern during this discussion, removing any stigma that this was an official or unofficial endorsement by a terrorist organization.

I hope everybody is finally content with this :-) --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 17:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Perfect!--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
• Nice update' -- I think that's a more logical place. After thinking about it, I think Islamic Extremist is a better than Jihadist Reaction, IMO. Digital^NinjaWTF 19:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
• Looks good AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

One person insists, it appears, on "jihadists." I changed it back to "Islamic extremists" per what appears to be consensus. Collect (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

There's no consensus; let's have a discussion and then a vote if you want some measure of consensus. Frankly neither you nor the other person arguing for "extremists" has made a persuasive argument, and you've completely ignored the substantive arguments and evidence I have offered here. csloat (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh? So far you alone have claimed "jihadist" is not pejorative. Contrary to all the Islamic communites, the US and Canadian governments, and the EU. Thanks. Collect (talk) 01:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you have a source for your claim that the term jihadist is pejorative. If you provide it for us, it may help your case a bit. Although, I'm not sure it matters: Wikipedia is not censored. Anyway, we should probably use the term used in the supporting reference. If it's good enough to support the text, it's good enough to support the usage of the term. --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:WTA recommends against using pejorative words in general. The US Government and EU find "jihadist" offensive (do you need the official cites? They are quite bureaucratic in nature) . The specific religious connotations are many, and deliberately baiting Muslims seems unwise at best. Is there a reason why you prefer, nay, insist on, a word found to be pejorative by American Muslim organizations? I would think :Islamic extremist" is quite sufficient to convey the emaning intended without conveying an offensive term. Personally, I regard deliberate use of an offensive term to be offensive, no matter whom it is directed at. Thanks! Collect (talk) 02:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. A reliable source would be nice, so we don't have to just take your word for it. (Not that I'm not assuming good faith, but your claim is being disputed by at least one other editor.) I personally don't care either way, but I am tired of watching the edit war and bickering. So, anything definitive would be helpful. --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that even if he finds a source who thinks it is pejorative, that does not speak to its use in this context. As I have shown conclusively, "jihadist" is the translation of "mujahid" that is standard in counterterrorism scholarship. I gave a number of widely divergent sources above as well as easy google books and google scholar links to demonstrate this point. We should be using the word used by the experts specifically commenting on this issue not because it is pejorative but because it is more accurate. "Islamist extremist" would include such people as Ali Sistani or members of Hamas; whereas the people who endorsed McCain in this way were not just "extremists"; they were people who have declared jihad against the US and consider themselves mujahideen (jihadists). Finally, his argument that the US government finds the term pejorative is sheer nonsense; it is in common usage in US government publications on this topic. csloat (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

US government publications? Nope. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24297050/ "Federal agencies, including the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the National Counter Terrorism Center, are telling their people not to describe Islamic extremists as "jihadists" or "mujahedeen," according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. Lingo like "Islamo-fascism" is out, too.

The reason: Such words may actually boost support for radicals among Arab and Muslim audiences by giving them a veneer of religious credibility or by causing offense to moderates." As stated before. http://www.islamicpluralism.org/news/2008n/081020islam.htm "Mr. Saylor said CAIR opposes the use of “jihadist” and other Islamic terms because the use of non-Islamic terms “serves the strategic purpose of isolating extremists and removing the false cloak of religiosity that they use to justify their barbarism.”" Collect (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a new development; it's certainly in common use in publications before 2008, and I imagine this particular directive will have about as much longevity as the directive to change the name of the Global War on Terror (GWOT) to the Global Struggle Agaunst Violent Extremism (GSAVE) which, you'll remember, was done for exactly the same reason you cite on this one here. It's an interesting new development but should have no bearing on how Wikipedia treats the issue (and it certianly had no bearing on how scholarly work in the field - most of which is quite sensitive to these concerns - treats the terminology). In any case you have your work cut out for you if you wish to get Wikipedia to modify the WTA policies to include any terms the state department suddenly decides aren;t politically sensitive. csloat (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Also the EU et al. I see no reason to use words which we know are offensive to any religious group. Collect (talk) 01:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Nonresponsive. Some find it offensive, yet others embrace it; all of mainstream terrorism scholarship uses it because it is more precise than alternatives. It is also a specific translation of the word used by these groups to describe themselves, which is why this whole argument is somewhat nonsensical. In any case, potential offense to a religious group is not a good reason to censor an encyclopedia; see WP:CENSOR. csloat (talk) 20:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Less than 24 hours of talk isn't "nonresponsive", and several sources have been provided showing that "jihadist" is an offensive term. I reverted your premature unilateral edit which violate WP:WTA. More discussion is required before changing the usage of "Islamic extremist" in the article. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 04:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The wonderful power of "some" strikes again. "Some" Muslims find it offensive. "Some" governments find it to be offensive. Seems to me that so far you have not shown any Muslim groups saying "call us Jihadists" nor any governments saying "call Islamic extremists 'Jihadists'" I'll bet you could find "some" editors who would call Israelis "Zionist invaders" or much worse ... (Search reveals some editors use far worse language). For me, I will suggest that deliberate of offensive language is wrong. Collect (talk) 13:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I see the word "jihadist" nowhere in WP:WTA. Please stop making phony arguments. I've already responded to the canard that it is offensive, and I suggested a compromise that has the advantage of grammatical superiority as well as accuracy, yet you chose nonetheless to revert to the objectively poorer wording. On top of that, you included a bunch of WP:SYN violations in your completely POV-pushing interpretation of the Gallup poll. I'm going to restore my changes; please do not revert again. Thank you for your cooperation.

To Collect: If you want to find the Muslim groups who call themselves mujahideen, start with al-Qaeda, the group which we are concerned with here. I never said we should "call Islamic extremists 'jihadists'"; I insist only that we call jihadists jihadists. Finally, the claim of offensiveness is a canard. Your quotes about the State de3partment initiative is not about offensiveness but about the political effect of this term on the war on terror. I don't think it's Wikipedia's job to help any government fight any war. I'm just insisting on the use of the more accurate term as used in reliable sources by experts on the topic. Finally, I suggested a compromise that should be more than acceptable to everyone on the other side of the argument. Thanks for cooperating on this. csloat (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

See above, the offensiveness relative to 'Islamic extremists' part was a canard also. Anarchangel (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Um -- a "compromise" that we will only use the n-word HALF the time when referring to Obama would be a good compromise? Nope. "Jihadist" is offensive, even if only used half the time <g>. And you do not need to address your posts to one editor at a time -- everyone can read your posts. Collect (talk) 11:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC) By the way, WP:WTA does not claim to be a lexicon of all offensive terms. Using claims like "phony arguments" might be considered a personal attack by some, as you ought to be aware. See the sections on "words that label", and "words with controversial or multiple meanings." WTA does not list words, and your statement that since "jihadist" in not on the "list" is a straw argument. Or ought we use the n-word only half the time when discussing Obama? <g> Collect (talk) 11:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Comparing a word in wide use in academic and journalistic settings with "the n word" is more than a little bit hysterical. It's not worthy of a response. "Jihadist" is not offensive in this context and even if it were, Wikipedia is not censored. WTA is not a "lexicon of all offensive terms"; it is a list of "words to avoid," and "jihadist" is not on that list. I'm calling your arguments phony because they are phony -- you can't possibly believe that jihadist is like the n-word. And your suggestion that we use it for Obama is ridiculous. I'm not suggesting that we call McCain a "cracker"; I'm suggesting that we use a word that is used by reliable sources and all of mainstream terrorism scholarship, as well as by the community being described itself. I have answered this "offensiveness" canard over and over again, and you have failed to address my points at all. csloat (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There certainly appear to be some Moslems who do feel that way, and I would have hoped that the desire to avoid derogatory terms would be universal. In any case, using a derogatory term only half the time is not exactly logical, is it? WP:WTA is not only NOT a list of words to avoid, it makes no claim to being a list of words to avoid! The EU and US govermnets, the Canadian government and a host of others find the word "jihadist" to be offensive. I am glad you assert greater wisdom that all of them, and greater knowledge of what is offensive to Moslems than Moslems have <g>. As for using the word "phony" -- you are making silly and inane aspersions worthy of a mirror. Collect (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You're the one being silly and inane. If you're unable to respond to my arguments, please consider that you are wrong. But there is no need for phony canards about what all Muslims supposedly believe. csloat (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right, "jihadist" isn't on the words to avoid list, which is clearly presented as being absolutely completely comprehensive -- therefore it's okay to use it! And it's not as bad as the n-word either (which isn't listed on WP:WTA, so I dunno why we're avoiding it here). And you know what? I don't think "African-American" properly identifies Barack Obama, so as a compromise, I'm gonna go switch some of the references to spook and spade instead. They're not listed in WP:WTA so that makes them okay! Jeez, gimme a friggin' break... the need to go point/counterpoint with someone who is adamant about using offensive terminology on a neutral encyclopedia has expired. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 20:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, if you think those words are more appropriate for Obama, you should not be editing Wikipedia at all. And if you can't see the difference with using the term widely accepted in the scholarly literature, then you really need to go educate yourself. csloat (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Your inability to detect sarcasm is astounding. And thanks for reintroducing the pretentious statements; they really boost your non-arguments! --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 04:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

From what I can tell, we have one negative argument against "jihadist" and no positive arguments for it. Sloat, Regardless of whether or not you think "jihadist" is offensive, it does concern the other editors. You reject an argument against "jihadist" but unless I'm mistaken, I haven't seen any proposed in favor of "jihadist" other than "it was in the article and other people use it" which I don't think really matters. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You are quite mistaken, I have actually made several arguments for the use of the term. To summarize -- (1) accuracy, (2) precision, (3) it is the term widely accepted in the scholarly literature, (4) it is the term that is actually most appropriate to describe the community that is being described; (5) it is the term used by that very community to describe themselves, and finally (5) the term "Islamic extremists" creates more of an insult to those Islamic extremists who are not jihadists (i.e. the overwhelming majority of them) by lumping them in with those who have declared war. The only argument we have against using it is a ridiculous canard based on a specious analogy between "jihadist" and the n-word. As I have shown again and again above, that analogy is not even worth a response. csloat (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

We don't know who exactly is on this website. We just know that it's "linked" to Al Queda. You don't have to declare war on the US to say you want it to be exhausted. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

What we know is that reliable sources consider it a jihadist website linked to al Qaeda; and that it represents a consensus of posts to jihadist websites. Anything else is mere speculation taking us into the territory of original research. csloat (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• @ csloat:

FYI after your recent edit summary, I don't have to respond to everything you write here. As a matter of fact, I only respond to convincing arguments what I did before in the section above and very short in this section here. Since you pointed out the WP-article about Jihadist I'm wondering if you also looked into the one I pointed out: hirabah! I checked both but not only. There is that thing called "internet" where you can get lots of information and if you separate the "good seeds from the bad seeds" it can quite open your "horizon" of the way you think; Worked for me as I changed my mind afterwards as I stated before. Now it's up to you to either convince me (and others) to change their mind (and in my case back to yours). Since you don't provide real new thoughts and IMO just trying to make a WP:POINT nothing will change this way. That's it and thanks again for your "polite" edit summary. Your very appreciated --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

PS: Responding to your OR accusations; No, it's not OR at all!--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree hirabah would be a more appropriate term, and when the scholarship and media begin using that term as the standard, I will support Wikipedia following suit. You are ignoring the specific arguments I made; I summarized them above and if you want you are welcome to, as you say, use this thing called the internet to prove to yourself that I am not making up the fact that the term "jihadist" is the standard in use by scholars of counterterrorism. You are very good at being condescending but you are terrible at actually discussing the issues at stake here; I really can't tell from your comments what argument you think justifies your reversion, or what responses you might have to the claims I made above. As far as I can tell, in fact, you are just bullying me on this issue. csloat (talk) 02:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I can assure you that I'm not bullying you at all and I apologizing if it looked like it or you took it this way. This is NOT and will be never my intention! What I wrote is how I feel and think about it considering WP being the first in line (and then me of course like everybody else here; It's natural, isn't it?). If you now read my post above again with what I just wrote in mind you might get a different picture than before. Still, I stand to my post and won't response to your (several) posts; Just two things: About "...hirabah would be a more appropriate term, and when the scholarship and media begin using that term as the standard,...". Nice to hear that but I think the standard is already changing. And about:"...the term "jihadist" is the standard...". For once, it's the standard by certain groups and the most commonly known. That's why I initially was in favor of it but if even our government is looking at this term critically it should make you think about. It certainly made me think. Besides, WP doesn't force us to use such terms but rather discourage us to use such. If in doubt, we can always find a way around what we did in my opinion. Sure, no one can tell you what to think about it but I can ask you to think about it. Hope to have more of your opinion by tomorrow.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If you assert that the scholarly standard is now changing and the word "hirabah" is being used in place of "jihadist," please provide the citations to scholarly literature that uses the word hirabah in this way (or, better, provide a link to the article describing this shift in counterterrorism scholarship). I have provided multiple citations indicating that "jihadist" is still by far the preferred term for scholars and analysts. While I understand that there is a push from the US State Dept to downplay that term, there is no evidence at all that the push has had any effect whatsoever on mainstream scholars (though I am happy to be proven wrong if you have researched this topic more thoroughly than I have). And, frankly, it is like when they tried to change the name of the global war on terror to the "global struggle against violent extremism" -- a good idea in theory but one that made no sense to anyone when put into practice, and the initiative was quickly forgotten. Anyway I think your objection might be avoided if we say something to the effect of "sites described as jihadist" or something to that effect but it sounds too weasly to me. My main objections to censoring the term "jihadist" when it is clearly more accurate and accepted have been spelled out clearly on this page and have not been responded to; please consult my points 1-5 summarized above. Thanks. csloat (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hirabah page is a little disturbing. Hirabah is apparently not mentioned in the Qu'ran, or the authors could not find the cite. "those who...strive to spread disorder in the land" doesn't really pin it down definitely, for me. Even assuming another source can be found that explains exactly what it means, and the meaning matches what the cite said, it could only be used within the context of an explanation that it is what those Muslims who do not agree that Al Qaeda's is a Holy War would call them.

Jihadist does indeed have one extremely good thing going for it: It is a description of its subject by its subject. That's what one would be looking for in say, a completely made up example of fans of 1955 cars. If they call themselves "'55ers," and people who only like new cars, and are convinced that old car fans are ruining the car collector community call them "old car fanatics", one doesn't immediately rush to an article about them and ensure that they are mentioned as "old car fanatics", eh? Now let's expand the comparison a bit more. If one was convinced that AQ is evil, and therefore the "'55ers" would have to be evil too, then fine. But it would just be believing that the "'55ers" are evil, an opinion, and therefore not NPOV.

Let's get a little perspective here; many dispute Guantanamo Bay's assertion that AQ and such do not fall under the Geneva Convention; just considering the source, such as Alberto Gonzales, who called the Conventions 'quaint', makes such an assertion doubtful, and if you have read the Conventions, as I have, I think you'd be convinced that the spirit and innumerable amendments to the Conventions show them to be more inclusive than G. Bay would like us to believe. Even Guant. calls them "enemy combatants" when they get captured, although they wriggle around the definition considerably when a military status would require them to make a concession. Editors here may be at pains to show solidarity with Muslims who aren't in AQ just as the latter are to dissasociate themselves from AQ, but that isn't our job here. Muslims, in this case, have a vested interest, and if should not ignore that bias and our bias. In fact it is Jihadist that is the default, with a clear reason of normal use by the people it describes, with very good reasons against the propagandist 'extremist', which is only used by people who are opposed to the people described. Remember, majority isn't the rule. Good reasons are. Jihadist is used for reason of identity; 'extremists' is used for reasons of condemnation, and that isn't our job. Self-identification is less PoV than condemnation. Anarchangel (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

gallup poll distortion

The purpose of protecting a page is usually to give the participants in a dispute a chance to settle the dispute in talk; it is not to just delay an edit war for a few days. I have explained why I think the "world opinion" section is problematic. It distorts the Gallup poll (to the extent of claiming conclusions almost the opposite of even the title of the article linked). I think we should fairly represent the sources we use, and I do not think it is appropriate to cherry pick statistics from a poll in order to tell a story that isn't told by the article we link to. The word "apathy" is never used in the poll summary, for example. My suggestion is that we quote the Gallup summary directly or that we summarize it fairly; can others agree to that? csloat (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It has been summarized fairly, it's just not "fair" from your perspective. Everything in the contribution is factually accurate and cited appropriately. Neutrality for one lede paragraph statement has appeared to be resolved, and the first paragraph has been removed in order to ignite some discussion but unfortunately not much has happened on that front. Other than that, it's pretty much you claiming that conclusions are being misrepresent from what is essentially a reference, you removing facts from contributions, you applying inappropriate tags, and you citing inappropriate Wikipedia policies for discussion points you're unable to refute. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 17:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

My problem has nothing to do with "fairness"; it has to do with accuracy. Again, cherry picking statistics off a list to reach conclusions that are the exact opposite of what the summary of the poll says is inaccurate. And, again, attributing emotions such as "apathy" to poll numbers that never mention that word is entirely inappropriate. Please stop distorting things and please stop making false accusations against me. Thank you. csloat (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you bothered to find out the meaning of apathy? It's a perfectly reasonable summary for poll answers indicating no opinion, don't care, or refuse to answer, i.e. how most of the world answered. So yes, most of the world was apathetic in regard to the 2008 U.S. presidential election. The quote that you so staunchly want to overwrite my original paragraph about the world's disinterest, in addition to be redundant since most of the information is already states earlier in the section, clearly says the percentages that both the candidates received, as well as how much of the world was apathetic. So not only is your argument baseless since the supposed "conclusion" of the poll from Gallup (conclusion in quotes, since it's merely a summary and leading paragraph), but you're also giving undue weight to the other results since the supermajority of the world didn't care. The only one who's "cherry picking" is you. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 03:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, gosh, thanks for that link to the word "apathy," I'd be lost without it. No, it is not a "perfectly reasonable summary," and it is not used at all in the article. Why is it you are so hostile to using the actual words used in the article? That should be the default when there is a conflict. If you think my version says the same thing as yours, why are you so resistant to it? You are the one cherry picking since you are pulling statistics from the charts that are not even mentioned in the summary in order to reach a conclusion that is diametrically opposed to the summary on the source itself. Again, why are you so resistant to using an actual quote from the article rather than what you admit basically amounts to your own original research? csloat (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the necessary change, removing the cherry-picked information and replacing it with the direct quotation from the Gallup poll. If Amwestover really wants, we can add the part about "Citizens in Asia are the least likely to state a preference for the next president of the United States and to think the election makes a difference to their country" since he seems to think so-called "apathy" in Asia is important. However, I'm not sure that really has a lot of bearing for this page, which is about the McCain campaign. But I'm ok with including it if other folks want, as long as we don't mislabel it as "apathy." csloat (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and reverted your changes which removed relevant, significant, accurate, and factual information from the article. What you call "cherry picking" is actually representative data for more than half of the world's population, which is in line with Gallup's supposed "conclusion" that a supermajority of the world's population was apathetic. Throughout this entire discussion, you haven't provided a single reason for removing this significant piece of information other than citing policy alphabet soup regardless of its relevance to the discussion. Since you continue to have a problem with the use of "apathy", even though it is appropriate wordage I've switched the contribution over to "no opinion or undecided" even though it's wordier (which is why I used apathy in the first place).

I've also restored the initial lede paragraph. I don't think removing the paragraph achieved the goal that the Magnificent Clean-keeper was looking for, and in my opinion its removal gave the entire section less context. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 10:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Please. I've explained the changes carefully. I've added an option that allows you to include the information about Asia even though I've explained why it's offtopic. And I don't see the word "supermajority" or the word "apathy" anywhere in the linked article. I also don't see anything about whether most people "backed" a candidate in the article -- we're talking about responses to poll questions, and it is not up to Wikipedia to interpret those questions or answers. Gallup has already done that for us. csloat (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've restored the edit that has stood for a week and been explained above. I've also added a link to a different article that specifically discusses Chinese citizens not having a preference, so I don't think you can continue to make the claim that I have something to hide in Asia. But let's stop concluding things like "a supermajority is apathetic!" from an article that clearly is titled "World Citizens Prefer Obama to McCain by More Than 3-to-1." OK? Thanks. csloat (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The only reason you don't want data about Asia and Latin America included is because it doesn't conform to the conclusion that you are drawing for the Gallup poll yourself and keep trying to push. The data is all right there in the poll, so your argument is ultimately futile. For someone who keeps claiming that the poll is being distorted, you need only look in the mirror. Just because you may not like the data doesn't mean it's not relevant, and claiming it's not relevant because it's not specifically included in the poll summary's title is really the flimsiest argument I've ever read on Wikipedia. The fact is that a minority of the world had an opinion on the elections and a supermajority or the world was apathetic. So let's stop trying to hide the truth, shall we? Censorship has no place on Wikipedia.

These Bill Clinton tactics of arguing over the definition of "is" are getting tiresome. Apathy is a lack of opinion and/or interest, and that's how most of the people responded. I've switched the wording over to "no opinion" even though that's not the proper characterization of the poll responses. And the term "supermajority" is never actually used in any of my edits. You appear to just have a problem with the fact alone, not the wording. Well, the supermajority of the world's population was apathetic towards the elections. If you continue to have a problem with that fact, you should take it up with the supermajority of the world's apathetic population in regards to the election. Or you could just accept it and get over it already, that'd be a lot easier. The facts are still the facts, and neither you nor I are going to change that. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 00:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop being silly. You are wrong about what I "want," and you should not impute evil conspiratorial intentions to me when a much simpler explanation might suffice -- in fact, I explained myself quite clearly above. I even added the information about Asia you think is so important, providing a link to an article that actually reaches the conclusion you are trying to pull out of cherry-picked statistics from the other article. You deleted this link and then you accuse me of trying to hide something. You accuse me of distorting the poll yet I am the one trying to use a direct quote from the poll. This has nothing to do with censorship, bill clinton, apathy, or "supermajorities." It's a very simple issue, actually. Stop imagining that this has to do with anything more than the simple issue I have explained a few times now. Thanks. csloat (talk) 03:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Your edits and your talk explanations make it pretty obvious that I'm correct about your intentions. Instead of reflecting the poll data, you are using it to draw you own conclusions because you do not like the actual poll data. A simple look through the history will show that you were initially just copying and pasting the quote over the poll data that you didn't like. You didn't seem to think that poll data about European Union countries, parts of Africa, Canada, Australia, Japan, and South Korea wasn't cherry picked, but the data for other countries which didn't support your conclusion was cherry picked -- how dubious and hypocritical. So you replace the polling data for Asia with a vague sentence and completely removed information for Latin America. In addition, it's obvious that you copying the quote over the poll data you didn't like was for exclusion purposes because the lede paragraph already contained most of the information from the quote and it cited the same source. Any explanation for all of that? Because the actions speak for themselves.

If you don't want to be accused of bad faith, then simply stop exhibiting it. Stop declaring pretty much every edit you make in regard to this as "consensus" when it's unilateral. Stop splattering the policy alphabet soup against the wall hoping something sticks. Instead, provide valid reasons for your edits. Stop declaring factual and relevant information as distortion. And stop using sources to draw your own conclusions. When every one of the things I've mentioned can be proved with diffs -- multiple diffs in most cases, and with a list this long, it makes it hard to continue to assume good faith. Like I said, if you want to be regarded as acting in good faith, then exhibit good faith. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 06:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I am not drawing conclusions, I am quoting the linked source directly. You are the one drawing conclusions. Please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA and please stop violating those policies. Thanks. csloat (talk) 08:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Gallup Poll Distortion

I've started an RfC for this so let's let others have a look. The dispute is between this version, which I support, and this one, which Amwerstover supports. My problem with his version is it cherry picks specific statistics and attributes conclusions to the pollsters that do not appear in the linked source. I prefer the version which directly quotes the source rather than picking various statistics from the poll to create a new conclusion. The information may be the same, but it is not Wikipedia's job to sort through poll data to build a particular story. Amwestover wants this poll to be used to demonstrate that the world is "non-opinionated." But the title of the article linked clearly states, "World Citizens Prefer Obama to McCain by More Than 3-to-1." Amwestover may be correct about the conclusions that he draws, but those conclusions are the writer's to draw, not the Wikipedia editor's. I feel we avoid this problem altogether by simply quoting the source directly. Unfortunately, he cannot explain why he prefers his version other than to make strange accusations about my intentions. csloat (talk) 08:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC) Template:RFCpol

• Yawn. Wait. I do have an opinion. I think both csloat and Amwestover should get over it already. Go edit some other article and quit edit-warring over minute diferences. I mean . . . really, who cares. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

  Comment. <sarcasm> Very constructive, thanks. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 15:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support Amwestover's version. The accusations about your intentions are not "strange". It's pretty obvious from your original version that your intention has been to remove the world opinion statistic that don't support the conclusion that you've drawn and projected onto Gallup's poll data. You even admit that my edit is correct, which was the existing edit that everyone else supported before you started making unilateral edits out of nowhere. Plus, unsurprisingly you characterize my summary as a "conclusion". And despite the various excuses that you've come up with throughout all this, you're now reduced to citing the article's title as a reason to not include my correct summary, which has got to be the absolute worst and transparent excuse I've ever heard on Wikipedia. If this criteria for citation that you made up out of thin air were applied to all Wikipedia citations, contributions would have to be wiped from countless articles. You also neglect to mention that the quote that I'm apparently distorting specifically mentions the support for Barack Obama, John McCain, and the non-opinionated which makes up a supermajority of the poll responses. My contribution gives due weight to each of these aspects, focusing mostly on John McCain since he is the subject of this Wikipedia article; whereas your edit reverts the material about the non-opinionated answers giving undue weight to everything else.
  And you've also been reduced to lying in the RFC opening paragraph. You could've simply said, "here are the two version, discuss", but you couldn't help yourself. And it didn't take you very long to lie, claiming that I'm drawing conclusions that aren't in the cited source. a.) My contribution is a summary, not a conclusion, and b.) everything in my contribution is reflected from the source. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 15:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Amwestover, I've been asking you to please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA for some time now, but you fail to have done so. Accusing me of lying and making things up about my intentions is not helpful. Please read those pages and take a break to digest the information before returning here; thanks. You say that citing the article's title is the "worst and transparent" excuse you've ever heard -- yet you don't explain why. When you ask for a summary that seems diametrically opposed to even the title of the article (as well as every actual sentence in the article), there is a problem with your summary. I realize everything in your summary comes from the source; but the problem is you are picking and choosing pieces from the source and synthesizing them in a manner that the source itself never does. This is classic original research. Evb-wiki points out this is minor and I agree; but nevertheless it is a simple factual dispute about what is actually said in the article. You claim that everyone else supports your edit but I don't think so -- based on what they've written, they seem annoyed by our dispute (understandably so, given your acrimony), but my edit was left unchanged for a week before you returned to start edit warring and personally attacking me again. I am starting to worry that this is a behavior problem rather than a content dispute. Please stick to the content and don't make claims about my intentions. Thanks. csloat (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Well this was more of your usual banter; everything I said still stands true and you haven't proven otherwise. However, I thought I'd point out how hysterically hypocritical it is that you're telling me to assume good faith when you're saying I'm distorting data. It's also a flat out lie, but I've already pointed that out, too. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 03:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support commodores version. both seem to have too much info, but commodores has less and seems to get to the point better. also, not sure i see any lying. Brendan19 (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. The point of the contribution was to add detail to a section that was geared specifically towards an ongoing election and obviously aged quickly after the conclusion of the election. The goal was also to make the entry encyclopedic instead of loading it with direct quotes that obviously aren't written to be in the context of the section, which is why I prefer paraphrasing in general.
    As for the lying, the contribution itself isn't a lie. I was referring to csloat. He has been lying by deliberately characterizing version of the section incorrectly, as I said in my initial !vote. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 03:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop making false accusations. Again, I urge you to read WP:AGF and WP:NPA. You will find your activities on Wikipedia far more rewarding if you follow those guidelines. Thanks! csloat (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support commodores version. I've decided I prefer csloat's as well. It contains few weasel words and is less stilted. It is simply better written. --Evb-wiki (talk) 04:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
• New version by Amwestover. All of the data that csloat claimed I "cherry picked" out of the poll data has been cited by individual articles that Gallup wrote summarizing the results. This version contains all those cites. And it took such an effort to find all these articles, seeing how as they were all directly linked in the original cited source. So at this point, this entire discussion is moot. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is not moot. A clear consensus has emerged at this point. I've restored the preferred version. csloat (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

What a surprise, you declaring a clear consensus on an RFC after two days. <sarcasm> Cuz you have no history of doing that ever before. </sarcasm>

Plain and simple, your main "concern" of using citations from a source which don't fully support the article's title, an absolutely ridiculous criterion that isn't supported anywhere on Wikipedia, has been resolved. This is the issue that's been clearly explain in your biasly worded RFC opening paragraph as your problem with my contribution. Now that it's been addressed, there's nothing really left to discuss. So at this point the discussion is moot... unless you wanna come up with another reason why my contribution is somehow wrong or violates policy, or distorts data or whatever. Or if you want to count !votes, which again <sarcasm> would surprise the hell outta me since you've never done that before. </sarcasm> --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 20:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Not moot. The burden is on you to get agreement. --Evb-wiki (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It's moot. Csloat clearly stated in the RFC what his issue was (well, what his current issue was; he comes up with something new every time a "concern" is disproved or addressed) and his issue has been addressed. Plus, !vote counting isn't gonna get you far. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 23:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Unilaterally revert-warring when nobody else agrees with you here isn't going to get you far either. This page is about the "John McCain presidential campaign, 2008," not about global supermajorities or world apathy or anything else; I'm not sure why you want to put extraneous information in there but it is clear that the people discussing it here prefer the version I proposed. Can we please move on now? And would it be possible for you to participate in future conversations without constant recourse to personal attacks and accusations of bad faith? That would be great, thanks. csloat (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

!vote count is bad faith, as is declaring "consensus" on a farce of a RFC after 2 days. And since you're the one removing content, you're the one that's revert warring. You don't even have a valid reason anymore. I've officially lost my patience with you since your intent is clearly not to reach consensus. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 23:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

There are several valid reasons on the table. It is you who has no valid points anymore; on top of that, you violated 3RR again. Good day. csloat (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't need wp:3rr to be blocked when it comes to a clear edit-war between two editors. Both of you could be blocked by WP standards. I might or probably am talking to a brick wall right now but did you guys consider to condense the section starting with a summarizing and leave most (or even all of the rest) out?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I followed your suggestion, but I wouldn't be surprised if csloat reverts it because it's my edit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amwestover (talk • contribs)

No; I'm going to revert because instead of following his suggestion, you took the opportunity to censor an entirely different paragraph about a well-known newsworthy event that had been put in the article after weeks of discussion and compromise. Please see WP:AGF and WP:DE. Thanks! csloat (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment. What did I tell ya? He of course has a problem with it. Since CSloat is completely unwilling to compromise on a more detailed version of the section, I'm taking the minimalist approach suggested by Brendan19 and The Magnificent Clean-keeper and making the section as concise as possible. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 01:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't be disruptive. You know very well that the information on the jihadist reaction was debated here for weeks and the consensus was to include it. Now you are deleting it, and pretending that has something to do with the discussion about your attempt to distort the gallup poll results. Those are two separate discussions; please do not confuse them and then impute abusive motives to me. Thanks. csloat (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Per your common suggestion, read WP:ASG and WP:NPA. This discussion has been about the entire World Opinion section, not just on the parts of the section that you deem editable. You should also familiarize yourself with WP:CCC. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 02:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that's bullshit. Today is the first you've brought up the issue of jihadist opinion since the gallup poll discussion began, and everyone here knows it -- for heaven's sake just look at the title of this discussion section. You know very well that there was a longstanding discussion that led to a compromise, because you participated in that discussion. You may think this is a game but your actions are insulting to everyone who takes this seriously as an encyclopedia and as a collective effort. If you want to raise new questions about the section on jihadist opinion, please start a separate talk section and explain yourself, but otherwise it is just rude to delete the section that the consensus clearly supported. Your actions are extremely disruptive. csloat (talk) 07:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

If you think that Wikipedia policy is bullshit then you should take it up with the Wikipedia community rather than expressing your disapproval of it here since this is not the place to do it. For someone who suggests it a lot, I suggest that you familiarize yourself with WP:ASG and WP:NPA. And since you clearly need a refresher on consensus (assuming that you've actually read the policy on consensus in the first place which may very well be an incorrect assumption), also read WP:CONSENSUS, particularly WP:CCC. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 10:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I never said Wikipedia policy was bullshit; I said your comments were bullshit. You are distorting the policy and you know it. Yes consensus can change, but you can't assume consensus has changed when the most recent evidence of consensus has not been challenged in any way. There has been no discussion since the consensus emerged on either the jihadist paragraph or the world opinion paragraph; there was a compromise on both but you chose to unilaterally violate those compromises in order to censor relevant and well sourced information. Now you're nonsensically spouting about Wikipedia policy when you have violated them yourself again and again. I still don't even know your reason for censoring the paragraph on the Islamist extremist reaction (after you agreed to the compromise paragraph little more than a week ago). Frankly, your behavior is embarrassing. csloat (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yet more claims of "distortion". For someone who constantly suggests that people read WP:AGF and WP:NPA, you'd expect that they'd actually read it first. And since you completely avoided the compromise that you speak of, I don't know why you're bringing it up as if you understand what it was all about. And again, familiarize yourself with WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CCC, it'll make discussing this a lot easier. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 01:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, consensus can change, but there is no evidence that it has. Now stop playing games; I'm not going to continue to engage in any kind of discussion with you if you persist. Either discuss the material here or leave the rest of us alone so we can continue to edit an encyclopedia. Thanks csloat (talk) 04:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the version of the section which had an agreed upon compromise has changed, you cannot assume that the same editors agree on the new version of the section. If you had actually contributed to the compromise, you would know this. But instead of being constructive in the consensus, you stubbornly avoided the compromise discussions and refused to give an inch. This is the pattern of your behavior on all content dispute related to this article, and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if this was your behavior on all articles that you edit on Wikipedia. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 04:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about me assuming anything -- you're the one assuming consensus HAS changed, and you're providing no evidence. The only discussion over the past couple weeks has been about the gallup paragraph, not the Islamist paragraph. csloat (talk) 04:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Well if you're not assuming anything, then this should be a non-issue and shouldn't bother you. And you shouldn't make any assumptions in the first place since you never participated in the compromise in the first place. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 05:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Amwestover but you're full of it. You know very well that I participated in the compromise in the first place, on the jihadist paragraph, as well as the second place, on the gallup poll paragraph. You are confusing the two debates, but to say I didn't participate in the compromise is an outright lie. In either case, it doesn't matter, I am offering yet another compromise on this third dispute below; hopefully we can be done with this. csloat (talk) 08:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

These discussions are all archived, you know. Anyone can clearly see that your only "contribution" to the compromise was counting !votes, resisting changes to your version, and avoiding the discussion for the version of the compromise that was accepted by the community. And you are yet to offer a single "compromise" since you don't actually listen to anyone; nobody has asked for a single change that you've made. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 15:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop making false accusations and deal with the issues here. Everyone who wants to look can see that you are lying about this; nobody cares because we've both gone on way too long. Now grow up and agree to the current compromise, or tell us why you won't. Thanks and have a nice day. csloat (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I haven't said anything that's false or a lie, everything is archived and readily available to anyone. I've explained why I don't support your current "compromise", and refamiliarize yourself with WP:NPA. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 16:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Abstain. Like Evb-wiki said, this is not about the article (world opinion was a non-issue in the campaign and election), it's about a never-ending dispute among a small group of editors. I suggest you go to the Sarah Palin presidential campaign, 2012 article and start doing battle there now. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support Amwestover's version csloat's version violates WP:UNDUE. Enigma ^message 04:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Which version are you voting on now? If we're back to the jihadist paragraph we need to start this over. But which version violates undue and why? csloat (talk) 04:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• We're discussing the Gallup poll section. Enigma ^message 04:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks -- the reason I ask is that Amwestover is also deleting the section on Islamist extremist opinion. Please can you clarify further -- are you comparing the original two versions that are disputed (e.g. this version, which I supported, and this one, which Amwerstover supported), or the most recent two versions (e.g. this one as mine and this one as Amwestover's? If the latter, I would be happy with Amwestover's version of the Gallup poll paragraph, but I do not think the paragraph on the Islamist opinion should be deleted. Can you please clarify? I am very appreciative to have another perspective here as I am getting exasperated, but I am very willing to compromise on the Gallup paragraph as I think I have shown. Thank you! csloat (talk) 04:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm responding to your post which started this section. I compared the versions and gave my opinion. Seriously, all this edit-warring and arguing is getting tiresome. Enigma ^message 04:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Question. Could you be more specific as to which version you support? I've come up with multiple versions in order to compromise with CSloat, but he makes up new excuses every time I address any of his issues with my version. There's the version that existed before the RFC, the version that has distinctive cited sources for all polling data included, and this version which is a minimalist version suggested by Clean-keeper and the current version. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 04:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Of those choices, I prefer Clean-keeper's version. Enigma ^message 04:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but I wanted to be certain. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 05:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

By "Clean-keepers version" you mean the shorter version of the Gallup passage? I am ok with that, again, as long as the second paragraph on the Islamist extremist reaction is kept in. If all of us agree on this, we have an acceptable compromise. Thanks for your input; I apologize if this has gotten tedious, but that is because Amwestover is either "moving the goal post" or simply confused. Hopefully this compromise will put this all to rest. csloat (talk) 08:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not "moving the goal post" as you so metaphorically put it. The only problem here is that for some reason you believe you're the arbiter of what's under discussion and what's editable. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 16:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes you are moving the goal post. The debate over the jihadist paragraph had been settled and we were arguing over the Gallup paragraph. Just as we were on the verge of compromise over a much shorter version of that paragraph, you deleted another paragraph entirely, re-starting the edit war just as it was nearing its end. This isn't about "what's editable"; it's about a compromise that we reached weeks ago that you agreed to. Now suddenly you are going back on your position, falsely citing "undue weight." It's a major event in the McCain campaign that was reported in numerous reliable sources. All that's included is two sentences. I would be happy with moving them if that is your major concern, but you keep deleting them entirely. Please stop. Thanks. csloat (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not "moving the goal post". I have been discussing this considering the entire scope of the section, you seem to think that's not allowed for whatever reason. And I repeat, had you actually participate in the compromise, you would know the conditions and people's reasons (and mine in particular) for supporting it. But you didn't. Refamiliarize yourself with WP:CCC -- assuming that you've actually read it in the first place, and if you haven't then introduce yourself to the policy for the first time. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 16:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes you are moving the goalpost. I didn't say that discussion "wasn't allowed"; what I said was it didn't happen. It still hasn't happened. Raising a small unsourced whine about Raisman's qualifications hardly changes the consensus on the issue which was that the material was notable enough to be included. And yes I agreed to several compromises on both paragraphs as you are well aware. Enough of this; I'm not going to dignify further nonsense with a response. csloat (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see what this has to do with whether the Islamic bit is included or not. That's a separate discussion. This was simply how much space do we give to opinion polling of the rest of the world. The Islamic extremist sentence isn't even opinion polling. It's speculation based on nothing of substance. Enigma ^message 08:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That's my thoughts exactly. I don't see what any amount of material about what is essentially a guestimate from a barely notable organization has any business near a short summary for a months long worldwide scientific poll from a reputable organization like Gallup. It's clear undue weight. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 16:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree - it's a separate discussion that we already had weeks ago. Amwestover is collapsing it into this discussion. And it's not "speculation based on nothing of substance" -- it is based on numerous reports in reliable sources; one sentence explaining that is all that is included here. Since we appear to have resolved the Gallup paragraph, this is all that is left, and the previous discussion supported inclusion. Amwestover seems to think this sentence doesn't belong in "world opinion," although that was precisely the compromise he agreed to weeks ago. I have no problem with moving it to another section if that will settle this, but I don't think it should be deleted. Thanks. csloat (talk) 16:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The only "source" for the Islamic bit is "Raisman" who has no c.v., no credentials, no published work, and appears to be known only for this press release, which was the basis for the "sources" claimed. Collect (talk) 16:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment. This is the main reason that I don't support the inclusion of this material in the current version of the section. We're giving major undue weight to a single barely (if at all) notable source's guestimate compared to a summary of a worldwide Gallup poll. I supported the inclusion of this guestimate (and the expert counterterrorist's opinion) along with a detailed analysis of world opinion, but since editors don't want that anymore I think the guestimate needs to be trimmed out along with the rest of the analysis. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 17:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, WEIGHT. The safe haven of subjectivity that is by definition irrefutable. Anarchangel (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. So do you have an actual reason as to why an unscientific observation from a barely notable source should be given as much weight as a summary of a worldwide scientific poll from a world-recognized pollster? --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 01:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, guys, that's just not true. Raisman was consulted on the story, as was Richard Clarke and Bruce Hoffman (two very well known terrorism experts), as was former NIC Chairman Joseph Nye, as was McCain foreign policy advisor Randy Scheunemann, Raisman's quote may have been repeated more often, but if you read the NYT and WP articles (as well as the AP coverage) you see that others are interviewed as well. The questions you raise about Raisman may be valid but they are irrelevant here; we're not quoting Raisman directly in the article, and whatever we may think of him, it is a fact that he is cited unproblematically by the NYT, AP, WP, and other reliable sources. It is not Wikipedia's job to raise questions about his vitae that are not raised in reliable sources. And Amwestover's comparison to the Gallup poll is ridiculous; the two are completely different issues. csloat (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

What's "ridiculous" is claiming that all these various names that you found in articles covering this had anything to do with assessing the supposed consensus on Islamic extremist websites. Only Raisman made any claim about Islamic extremist support for any candidate from these websites. The only two other name you mentioned that are in the Washington Post article are Scheunemann and Hoffman, and they're not even commenting on Raisman's conclusion -- they're clearly clearly talking about ACTUAL al-Qaeda leaders and their intentions, not some terrorist bloggers.
And you're right, a scientific worldwide Gallup poll and a guestimate from an unpublished analyst from a website monitoring service are two completely different things; and if you'd read my comment more carefully you'd realize that that's my problem. One is very notable and verifiable (the Gallup poll), and one is not (Raisman's conclusion). --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 02:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

First, you're nitpicking; Hoffman, Nye, and Clarke (read the NYT and Times articles not just the WP) all are interviewed specifically about this view on jihadist websites, they all clearly accept that premise -- to raise questions about it as you do is original research that isn't useful to editing the actual article. But I'm happy to cite these experts directly and more accurately if you prefer -- e.g. (from the NYT piece):

the endorsement of Mr. McCain by a Qaeda-affiliated Web site isn’t a surprise to security specialists. Richard Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism director, and Joseph Nye, the former chairman of the National Intelligence Council, have both suggested that Al Qaeda prefers Mr. McCain and might even try to use terror attacks in the coming days to tip the election to him. "From their perspective, a continuation of Bush policies is best for recruiting," said Professor Nye, adding that Mr. McCain is far more likely to continue those policies.

I think one problem here is that people don't like the word "endorsement," since that's not really what it is. But I think it's reasonable to report that that's the word used by the mainstream press in describing the incident. I also think we should include something about the McCain campaign's response, which would be preferable to raising original research doubts about Raisman's qualifications. And, frankly, I agree with Anarchangel below about the use of the term "jihadist," but I'm willing to go either way on that issue -- as strongly as I feel about using the more accurate and more specific term, that's a compromise I will continue to accept until consensus changes. It also seems people have a problem with this being "some terrorist blogger" -- the thing is, all of these experts recognize that this sort of thing is not unusual on these websites; all we know about the "terroirist blogger" is that he's described by WP as a frequent poster on a site that is "linked" to al Qaeda. I'm perfectly comfortable with having all those things spelled out if folks want to nitpick it (and you can even quote McCain campaign advisor Schneumann making these points if you like). I just don't think these sorts of criticisms should be coming from Wikipedia. csloat (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Comment. First, you're throwing everything against the wall to try and give this any semblance of notability, hoping that something sticks. Second, you're using several non-reliable sources. For instance, the New York Times source is an Op-ed, not a news story. The New York Times would never run a news article claiming that al-Qaeda has made an endorsement unless there actually was an official endorsement; and they never did because there never was an official endorsement. That's the reason why people have a problem with the use of "endorsement", because there never was any and trying to use the term is pushing a POV. In addition, you've also used blogs several times to try and prove points, which is just plain futile and a waste of yours and everybody else's time. And third, and most important, you're trying to use any quote from anyone that's related to the topic of al-Qaeda as a source of notability to Raisman's conclusion, which is blatant original research and synthesis. Raisman's conclusion is about an apparent consensus on a single password protected website (which has been incorrectly characterized as multiple website). Scheunemann, Hoffman, Nye, and Clarke are all clearly talking about the actual Al-Qaeda organization, not the website that is the subject of Raisman's conclusion. Clarke's opinion was given a whole three weeks before Raisman's conclusion was reported, so it's impossible that he was actually talking about Raisman. Since all of these experts' quotes are speculations about the al-Qaeda organization itself and not some allegedly linked website, they have no business being in a World opinion section since it's not opinion, nor a campaign article since it has nothing to do with the actual campaign itself. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 19:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, Collect, why did you delete "if he won the election"? I thought it added clarity to an otherwise confusing sentence. csloat (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It was redundant. If McCain did not win the election, he could not do much of anything about any war -- the entire premise was implicitly based on winning the election. Neither Clarke nor Hoffman was cited about the content of the websites. Raisman was, and in every source (i.e. the sources were not independent at all). We know less about Reisman than we know about Eisenstadt. Who was, if I recall correctly, QUOTED in "reliable sources." And, I would suggest, that it is proper to question "sources" who are totally unknown, who have no c.v. nor corpus of work to examine, and who may also work for the "Hoover Institute." Collect (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Why are you questioning the academic credentials of the Hoover Institution? Questioning Raisman may be appropriate, but if nobody is doing that in the mainstream press and he is treated as an expert by both journalists and experts, it's really not appropriate for Wikipedia to raise doubts where no reliable source has raised these questions. It's true that SITE keeps a low profile -- one would imagine such an organization would -- but it's also true that their translations and interpretations are considered authoritative. In any case, raising such questions is appropriate for this page, but not really for the McCain page. csloat (talk) 18:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI

I have created a thread concerning the above dispute and two of the editors involved on the WP:ANI notice board. I'm just tired of it, that's all. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I am too, but it doesn't seem helpful to go to ANI when DR seems to be on the verge of working. I have bent over backwards to make concessions and we agree to everything now except for the one sentence on the Islamist reaction. csloat (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Yawn. Wait. I do have an opinion. I think Evb-wiki should get over it already. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 17:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You were right to remove the comment; I was going to do it myself. I don't consider apologies useful, whereas prevention and restitution are. Won't be doing it again. Can't think of suitable restitution. But of course there are two sides to it, and I don't see any signs of the Yawn-ing being paid for, or even stopping. Anarchangel (talk)

You didn't read the RFC before making that initial comment, did you? --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 02:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

World view section

I removed some material about the extremists thinking that McCain could be provoked into a prolonged battle since this was not in the citation. This material seems to be a synthesis of one post article?? Has this recieved coverage else where? --Tom 21:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

To recap, this received coverage worldwide. The first coverage appears to be Washington Post, followed by reports in NYT, the Telegraph (UK), the Times of London, the UPI, AP, the Washington Monthly, and others. AP and UPI carried this as a top story when it occurred. The McCain campaign was severely rattled by the "endorsement" and held a conference call to address it; this too was very public and widely reported (the conference featured former CIA Director James Woolsey along with two McCain advisors, and was carried by Congressional Quarterly as well as the Federal News Service). The summary about McCain being "provoked into a long battle" is not something I am wedded to; in fact, I prefer the simpler language that was actually used by the Washington Post and others who indicate that the al-Qaeda website postings indicated a preference for McCain as President in the US. I am happy to compromise on the wording and would vastly prefer simple and more straightforward language, but the information should stay in the article. It is relevant; it was widely reported in numerous reliable sources, and it had a visible effect on the McCain campaign. csloat (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The McCain campaign was severely rattled by the "endorsement" and held a conference call to address it; this too was very public and widely reported (the conference featured former CIA Director James Woolsey along with two McCain advisors, and was carried by Congressional Quarterly as well as the Federal News Service).

If it's true that they were "severely rattled" then why can you only provide blogs and non-verifiable sources, all of which are overtly biased? --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 02:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Re-read the above. Click the links. Lookup the Congressional Quarterly or the Federal News Service. For heaven's sake just read the articles in the AP. Certainly "severe rattling" is a subjective judgement, but the fact of their reaction is well documented in reliable sources. I'm not advocating the language "severe rattling" in the article; in fact, I much prefer direct quotations to misleading summaries. csloat (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Both Jihadist & Islamist extremist are offensive to Muslims therefore:

This is a part of the discussion defining the current wording that passed completely unnoticed, so I am reprinting it down here.

-reprint- I can't believe no one noticed this: On 18 Nov, Collect wrote:
"In the cite, "jihadist" appears only as a quote from Raisman. So far, SITE has not sent me any info at all on this person, by the way. Has anyone else gotten any info? In any case, "jihadist" is considered offensive to American Moslems. [4]

The cited article actually decries the use of the adjective Islam to modify extremist, terrorist, etc, more than it does Jihad, in that it mentions the former first, foremost, and at greater length. Although Islam is used, the combination with the words it lists would require making an adjective of Islam to create Islamic. And although it may have only been for space reasons, the article in fact literally says nothing whatsoever about the noun 'Jihadist'. I would expect this would also be objectionable; the point is that the amount of research you apparently have done on this subject would not allow you to be an expert in the opinion of the Muslim community.

"The truth is that when you add the word Islam in front of words like fascist, extremist, terrorist, etc. Or, when you allow criminals like Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda to redefine the words Jihad and Shahed, then you are giving the impression to all the millions of Muslims in the world that you think that OBL and al Qaeda are correct in their attempts to give an Islamic justification for their criminal actions. They are not correct. Terrorism is not Jihad, it is Hirabah. A martyr is a person who dies in the cause of God, most certainly not someone who dies committing an act of terrorism." -The American Muslim, from the cite above

To the extent that the argument for 'Islamic extremists' has thus far been based on the assumption that it isn't offensive and 'Jihadist' is, the argument is, well, you tell me, I would say, 'negated'. Anarchangel (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

-reprint-

To the extent that "Islamic extremist" is a direct categorization, and that "Jihadist" uses a term of specific meaning within Islam, and that the use of "Jihadist" is considered offensive, and that "Islamic extremist" does not use religious terminoology -- the choice is clear. Note, by the way, that I have not used "Islamic terrorist" nor "Islamic fascist" in any posts, and I would consider such to be offensive on their face. There is, however, reason to call some people "extremists" and that does not appear to be a rational issue. Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

-new reply- If others are unclear about what I wrote, please say so. I thought it was fairly obvious that, as Collect's objection, that then swayed everyone towards using the word 'Islamic extremist' instead of 'Jihadist', was entirely based on an erroneous assertion that Jihadist was considered offensive and Islamic extremist wasn't, whereas the American Muslim article found them both to be offensive, that the use of these terms would have to be re-evaluated.
Please clarify the last sentence, before "Thanks!"
And, I would appreciate it if you did not use such a glaringly contrasting tone in your closing statements. I personally find it extremely annoying, as I cannot help but believe it is intentional sarcasm, due to its past use on other talk pages in conjunction with accusations and PA, but you of course know the truth of what it signifies, and are the keeper of your own conscience.
I concur that there are other issues involving the two words, but as I noted elsewhere, 'Jihadist' is a term of self-identification, where 'Islamic extremist' is a term of condemnation, and there is a clear case for usage of a subject groups' term for themselves, whereas condemnation is a breach of NPOV; although one is of course entitled to one's own opinion on the matter, it must not enter into the article text.
Extremist is a weak argument with a strong propaganda value. It is extremely subjective, yet pretends to be a measurable valuation. Beliefs of an 'extremist' need merely to be 'other' than the viewer's own for it to seem relevant. It is xenophobic, and the new bigotry. It is a right-wing spinning buzzword that has, ad nauseum and in a climate of fear, caught on. Anarchangel (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

A long post which changes nought. "Jihadist" is specifically a RELIGIOUS term. Hence is grossly offensive to most Moslems. "Islamic" is a descriptive term -- not a religious one in itself, hence, while I am sure no one wants to be called an "extremist" it is far less overtly offensive. As for your finding sarcasm where none was intended, I fear that is beyond my power to correct for you. I would, of course, be glad to show others what you consider proper in, say, edit summaries. Collect (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Cite away. There's the link. Anarchangel Look, you cited the article as an example of Jihadist being offensive and Islamic not, and the article doesn't say that. Do you really think it helps your case to make an unbacked and credibility-stretching assertion that Jihadist is religious and Islamic isn't? You're busted, it's over. You're wasting my time, you're wasting your own time. And before you or anyone else thinks I am being a little hasty with you on this, don't forget I have seen your MO in action already. I won't be running around in circles to pin down your little red herrings anymore, even to expose them. Anarchangel (talk) 07:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Gosh -- why not try WP:EQ. The term "jihad" has specific religious meanings within Islam. Or did you elide that fact? Or are you upset that I am in sync with UN usage, US government usage and EU usage? Collect (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Erm, I hate to get involved here, but Anarchangel is quite correct. After all, "Islam," equally, has specific religious meanings within Islam. csloat (talk) 07:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

most recent compromise version

OK, here is another compromise version of this paragraph. I put it in a separate section below "world opinion" but I'm not wedded to it being a separate section. I included the McCain campaign's response, although the cite is to NewsMax. But I thought that was better than quoting the NYT's characterization of the press conference ("The endorsement left the McCain campaign sputtering, and noting helplessly that Hamas appears to prefer Barack Obama. Al Qaeda’s apparent enthusiasm for Mr. McCain is manifestly not reciprocated."). At least this way the McCain campaign gets its fair say. The other sources linked are WP, NYT, AP, UPI, and Times of London. I don't think anyone can complain about those sources. I've also carefully noted that only one analyst described an "emerging consensus" even though it's clear other experts agree on this (and, in fact, if you read the Times of London piece or this piece in Wired, you learn that the web posting on the jihadist site is one of many, that the poster is "a prominent al-Qaeda supporter," and you get more from Raisman's analysis that provides context:

"I'm not going to extrapolate that what one member writes is going to translate into an attack, but some of the members of the forum are active in the field," Raisman said. In addition, though the author of this post and the other members of such forums are not officially affiliated with al-Qaida, its top leaders apparently pay attention to them. Earlier this year, Raisman noted, top al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri answered questions posed to him by one of the members of one of the extremist forums."

-- I'm not suggesting we quote all this, but I do think it shows why experts take Raisman's claim seriously.) In any case, this new version should answer all the problems that have been raised, but please offer constructive suggestions here. Thanks! csloat (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Far too long. Far too POV. Far too irrelevant to the price of eggs. And "experts" took Eisenstadt seriously. It does not mean we are to be sheep. Collect (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's a mere three sentences, and there isn't a hint of POV. It bends over backwards to tell the McCain campaign's side of the story; if anything it errs too much on the side of diminishing the significance of this event. If you have a better proposal, please share it, but sniping without evidence or reasons isn't helpful -- if you think it is "far too long," what word count would you suggest is appropriate? If you think it is "far too POV," tell us why. I'm not sure what the price of eggs has to do with this, and if you have something to add from Eisenstadt, let us know what it is. Happy holidays. csloat (talk) 03:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

This story got less press than Salin Palin's wardrobe. There is barely marginal significance to this story. Scheunemann, Hoffman, Nye, and Clarke -- several people that you use to prove "notability" (along with various blogs, but that's not even worth getting into) -- were all clearly giving responses speculating about the Al-Qaeda organization, and not Raisman's conclusion about a single password protected website. Plus I've already definitively pointed out that Clarke's opinion was given weeks before Raisman's conclusion. In addition, there's no proof from the provided source that McCain called a news conference specifically to respond to Raisman's conclusion. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 15:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This story was well reported and was a top story on the major wire reports. You can look at the sources yourself if you stop deleting them for a minute; none of them are blogs. This is not about Raisman or his conclusion, but the authors cited were all directly commenting on the same reports that Raisman was commenting on. And yes there is "proof" that McCain called a news conference; the entire conference is transcribed by reliable sources! Or are you suggesting that the Congressional Quarterly is lying? csloat (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you can click all the relevant cites if you re-read my post at the top of this section. Cheers, csloat (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the story was well reported... for a single day. Like I said, Sarah Palin's wardrobe got more press than this. You're still yet to prove that the McCain campaign gave Raisman's conclusion any significant notability. Your evidence of notability is articles from various sources, a news conference, and expert comments. Let's examine all this, shall we?

• I have looked at the sources in the article thoroughly. Some are reliable and some are unreliable. For instance, an Op-ed is not a reliable source, regardless of where it's published. That's why it's called an op-ed, it's not news, peer-reviewed, or fact-checked. So scratch that off the list. Neither are the various blogs that you've used to make points about notability in discussion; it goes without saying that these should be ignored and are a waste of our time. So we're left with a somewhat smaller pool of articles reporting the news related to Raisman's conclusion.
• As for the news conference, which you bring up frequently, it hasn't been proven to be exclusively called to respond to Raisman's conclusion. It's a campaign for the president of the most influential and powerful country on Earth, I'm sure they hold news conferences every day and answer a variety of questions many of which are probably non-notable too. So scratch that off the list. In fact, the one cited source in the article referring to the conference specifically says that Scheunemann was talking about the Washington Post article itself and how it was inaccurate and criticized the media's reporting. So scratch him off the list, too.
• And experts Hoffman, Nye, Woolsey, and Clarke, you've frequently claimed that they're commenting on Raisman's conclusion. Actually reading their quotes easily proves that they're talking about the Al-Qaeda organization, not Raisman's conclusion about a single website. In fact, Clarke's opinion on Al-Qaeda was given weeks before Raisman's conclusion. Scratch ALL THEM off the list too. This is an opinion section, not an Al-Qaeda speculation section. Their comments have no relevance to opinions on the campaign, or even the campaign itself.

All you're left with is some news article reporting a non-notable event for a single day (which is the media's job, not Wikipedia's), and Raisman who is never purported as any kind of expert, has no published work, and zero proof of notability. It is incredibly undue weight to give this guestimate as much significance as a months-long international poll from a reputable pollster.

Oh yeah, and bringing up that a few news outlines had called this an "endorsement" is such blatant POV pushing, especially when the only cite for that contribution which actually uses that terminology is an Op-ed. And also mentioning that there was no official Al-Qaeda statement gives the story even less notability. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 20:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If you think it's important to add Sarah Palin's clothes here please do but I don't see how it's relevant to the issue at hand. The news conference isn't about Raisman at all; it's about the fact that the media was reporting on an "endorsement" from al Qaeda, and it's pretty obviously a response exclusively to that if you would bother to read it (which you apparently haven't, or you wouldn't bother with such obviously false points). The news conference was in the CQ and the McCain campaign went so far as to hire an external expert, former DCI Woolsey, to speak at it specifically because some people see him as knowledgeable about al Qaeda. Stop acting as if this is about "Raisman's conclusion" or as if you are "scratching" people off of "lists" for some reason. It's a fact this was well reported in reliable sources and commented on by well known experts (Raisman is one of those experts, yes, but this is not some kind of popularity contest for Raisman). You raise a lot of original objections to Raisman which might be interesting to media conspiracy theorists but are totally irrelevant to Wikipedia. And you will find the word "endorsement" not just in an op-ed but also in the Times of London report, and it's a non-issue anyway since AP, UPI, WaPo all use "support" rather than "endorse" and I'm certainly not pushing the use of the word "endorse" in the article, though I have no objection to it either. But I'm happy with the word "support," it's a minor but acceptable change. Please stop censoring the information entirely if your objection is only to a specific word. Thanks! csloat (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the conference is supposedly called not because of Raisman's conclusion is the point. It's about time that you actually acknowledge that. The content of the edit is about Raisman's conclusion, despite your new position that this isn't about Raisman conclusion anymore -- even though the edit specifically mentions a "single analyst" referring to him. (Really, how many different positions can you take on this edit? I know you're trying to be a moving target, but you're just off the course now.) You still are yet to provide any proof that the conference was specifically about the Washington Post article. You claim to have a link to the transcript, it'd be nice to actually see it instead of hear you talk about it, but you're not one to link to sources. This might actually give credence to one of your arguments... for once. Plus, if you think this is supposed to be about various experts' opinions on an endorsement (which none of them actually do; they don't even talk about Raisman, they talk about Al-Qaeda and speculate about what they'd probably prefer), then this proves further that this content has no place in a World opinion section.

Aside from the fact that you've conceded that this content isn't about an opinion anymore, you're still yet to prove notability. There are literally hundreds of stories that have a day-long lifespan during a presidential campaign, and this was one of those non-notable hundreds. Concerns about weight and notability have not been address. This story is given way too much weight, there's no proof of notability, and it is misplaced in the article since it is not about opinion. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 07:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This change has nothing to do with Raisman; it has to do with the mass media reporting al Qaeda's support for McCain's campaign, and McCain's campaign reacting to that support. You can whine about Raisman all you want; he is quoted specifically in the mass media and discussed by McCain's campaign. But he is just one of the experts consulted here, as you know. In any case, if you have a change to make to the content, let's see what the change is, but stop deleting it -- notability has been established in spades, and you are just being disruptive now when you censor this material. Good day. csloat (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The section on this story seems to be expressing doubt that it was actually al-Qaeda that made this statement. If so, then what is its relevance? Key question: What effect, if any, did this story have on the election? My guess is, not much, or probably none. At worst, it would have counterbalanced the smears that Obama was a Muslim and/or an al-Qaeda sympathizer. McCain lost because he was closely tied to an unpopular President, and because he did not run a smart campaign - not because some alleged terrorist group claimed they supported McCain. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with Bugs above (except I'll add that McCain's cluelessness on the economy was a major factor as well). There's no evidence that this supposed Jihadi "endorsement" had any effect at all in the election, and it was barely a blip in the press. Just remove the reference to it completely. Kelly ^hi! 20:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I was figuring on his "sound economy" comment as being part of his poor campaigning, and that also brings to mind Will Rogers' parody of Calvin Coolidge, which sounds oddly familiar: "I am proud to report that the country as a whole is prosperous. I do not mean by that, that the whole country is prosperous, but as a whole it is prosperous. Now a hole is not supposed to be prosperous, and we are certainly in a hole. There's not a whole lot of doubt about that. And in conclusion: Everyone I come in contact with is doing well; they have to be doing well or they don't come in contact with me." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Inclusion is just some bizarre POV push, but in which direction, I can't guess at a glance. It's either 'Terrorists supported mccain so it's good he lost' or 'mccain scares terrorists more than Obama, so they lied, and it's bad he lost'. Either way, inclusion is a POV push about something which ultimately was irrelevant to his loss. (Found this through the AN/I report.) ThuranX (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The larger area of interest, if any, would be the rhetorical question raised by commentators on both sides, as to which candidate the terrorists would "want" to win. Not surprisingly at all, each side's commentators said the terrorists would like for the other candidate to win - Obama because he would be soft on them and let them get away with more, and McCain because he would be hard on them, and thus good for creating more polarization. The apparently bogus al-Qaeda announcement could well have been set up as a fake in order to support the latter idea, which is kind of what the GOP guy was saying. News flash: The terrorists couldn't care less who we elected. America will continue to be "the Great Satan" in their eyes. And that's their recruiting tool. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

FINALLY!!! The points that Baseball Bugs, Kelly, and ThuranX brought up are exactly what I've been saying all along. In addition to the inconsequential effects on the campaign regarding this story (notability), it's being shoehorned into the wrong section (relevance) and it is a POV-pushing contribution (neutrality). --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 22:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Page Protected

For 1 day due to the current and ongoing edit war between commodore sloat and amwestover. Also see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_war_at_John_McCain_presidential_campaign.2C_2008 for a discussion on a proposed topic ban for these two editors. Hopefully by the time the page protection expires, we will have consensus on removing the cause of the protection. SirFozzie (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)