Jump to content

Talk:Islamic terrorism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NiceAdam (talk | contribs) at 05:59, 27 August 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 12, 2006Articles for deletionKept
April 26, 2010Articles for deletionSpeedily kept

Requested move 26 March 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved No compelling consensus to move this title. Repeatedly subjecting this article to RMs is unlikely to develop any new consensus. I endorse the infinite move protection the article currently has and would encourage no further RMs for at least 1 year. Mike Cline (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Islamic terrorism → Islamist terrorism – Clarify the distinction between Islamic faith, civilization, people, and the ideology of Islamism that inspires this variety of terrorism. (parallel discussion at Talk:List of Islamic terrorist attacks) --Relisted. Steel1943 (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC) E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Islamist terrorism" is not COMMONNAME. Khestwol (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In searches:
site:http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/ "Islamist terrorism" got "45 results" while
site:http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/ "Islamic terrorism" got "1 result".
That one result was in a quote from musician Salman Ahmad of Pakistani rock band Junoon, I guess this may not one of their more high brow interviews, who was quoted as saying, "I also think there’s a failure in the media to research about the conflict, instead opting to present it as general Islamic terrorism."
Of course a presentation of "Islamic terrorism" is unrepresentative as the terrorism is specifically an issue of Political Islam aka. Islamism.
Many scholars make reference to "Islamist terrorism" GregKaye 18:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I won't participate or close the discussion, but I would have strongly suggested making this a multi-move (i.e., one move discussion on one page). Red Slash 21:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Haven't made up my mind yet, but I wanted to hear responses to this; yes, the term "Islamic terrorism" in and of itself seems like a slight NPOV violation. BUT, we have a number of terrorism related pages on WP, and many have no specific ideology associated with them; they are named after something about the perpetrators; ie state-terrorism, and whatnot. In each of those cases, the term is broader than the phenomenon; obviously "state terrorism" is not a function of being a state, it is speficic attributes of the state. I know, OTHERSTUFF; but we do need a standard of some kind, no? So how do we go about naming terrorism related pages? Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would be most eager to find any way to move the article Christian terrorism from that insane, Oxymoronic title. It is madness to think that there can be a Christian form of terrorism and feel certain sadness that the term "Christianist terrorism" hasn't been used prevalently. Even as an agnostic I'd say that any word starting "Christi.." is inappropriate to link to terrorism and, if any way can be found to move this article, it should be taken. GregKaye 21:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps. I guess what I was getting at was Wikipedia seems to be using "Islamic terrorism" to mean "Terrorism committed by Muslims." As long as that is consistant, and as long as the fact that not all Muslims are terrorists is thoroughly covered, that is not a bad way to organize articles. If we were to transition to organizing by ideology, what would that do to pages where the ideology is not coherant? That said, do we know that the terrorism described here has a coherant ideology? Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde93 I do not know whether there will necessarily always be anything coherant involved involved and concepts associated with ideals may arguably also be wayward. I have seen reports that when, for instance, members of Boko Haram in discussion with people like captives have found it difficult to explain their reasonings. There are theological interpretations invoved from case to case. Ideology though is something far more specific than description. For instance ISIL as an offshoot of Sunni Islam have a variant of a Salafist ideology. Individuals that associate themselves with Sufi and Shia forms of Islam have different ideologies and theological justifications. What they have in common is that they want to promote their own Subset of what they interpret as Islam and they do this with violence according to a, sometimes ill defined, political intention. For each groups individual ends, they each follow a form of Political Islam. GregKaye 10:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also ping: Broter regarding content above. There is no benefit in not making this change. I think you raise an important point regarding the difference between Christianity and terrorism and would encourage research into the way in which that article coud very relevantly be developed. GregKaye 14:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. List of Islamist terrorist attacks starts in 1990, about when Islamism. Some logic there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThis page and title, are problematic in the same way the Christian terrorism page is. How do we define terrorism. A page on Islamist terrorism could have coherence and defined borders. A page on Islamic terrorism too ill-defined to be encyclopedic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • E.M.Gregory, in a philosophical sense I'd agree with you. The problem as I see it, though, is that the very notion of terrorism, and particularly Islamic terrorism, has come into widespread use without this usage being built on rigorous academic definitions. So the usage of the term is literally all over the place. Therefore, I agree that Islamist terrorism should be the name of a good hypothetical page; but I don't see that the things referred to as "Islamic terrorism" can be uniformly shifted to that other name, because they are "Islamic" in the crude sense that they were committed by Muslims, but they are not "Islamist" in that there was frequently no coherent ideology behind them, and no coherent coverage of their motives. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:Vanamonde93 I think Islamic terrorism could be a good article (coherent). We could move the rest to Terrorism committed by Muslims.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hum. Interesting idea. Why not take it a little further, though? If it is determined that Islamic ideology played no part, then why is the religion of the perpetrator more relevant than other things about him/her? Wouldn't a more appropriate place be "Isolated terrorist acts" or something like that? I don't know, the usages in media sources, especially, are so poorly thought out. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Vanamonde93 While I would say that no part of core Christian ideology plays a part in so called Christian Terrorism I sadly consider Islam to be broader than that. Before getting judgemental I think comment can be made that, when talking to the Syrian woman, Jesus referred to non Jews as dogs Mt15:26 and when Jesus was due to be born, God left apparent signs in heaven that had an indirect effect of children being killed. On the other side of context Christian ideologies have led to the development of many organisations like the Red Cross. As far as I know somewhat similar ideologies within Islam or Islamic theologies have led to the foundation of a range of charitable organisations. There are examples of killing and ethnic cleansing in the old testament and there are also contents in the koran that can be used, to some extent, to justify heinous acts. One content at the ISIL page, for instance, says: "Political scientist Graeme Wood comments on IS that "the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam"". On the other side of this coin this group is waging war against Sufis and Shias with the response that the Jordanian government writes Enemies of Islam on its bombs. I am mentioning ISIL as it is a topic I have worked on. Another text says "Many Islamic and non-Islamic communities judge the group unrepresentative of Islam." and the word judge here acts as a link to some scathing criticism within which the name Un-Islamic State was even proposed. There are certainly also Islamists that are not violent but all the terrorists are, not only Islamists, they are Islamist extremists. None-the-less, Islamist extremism is certainly by far the more precise term. GregKaye 08:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support more accurate title indeed. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 07:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the same reasons I opposed this same proposal when it was brought up a few months ago, last December. My full reasoning then is here (I don't think it should be necessary to rewrite everything in full detail after only a few months), but it essentially boils down to the fact that the proposed title is not neutral, as it attempts to declare what a major religion is and is not, and which self-declared practitioners of said religion are truly members of the religion, and which are not. Egsan Bacon (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A unanimously supported move has recently been made to List of Islamist terrorist attacks and this move fits in with existing contents:
The last RM for this article received majority support from participants. The proposed title indicates that people involved in this form of terrorism are involved in a form of political Islam. This is not in dispute and the title is both is neutral and precisely accurate.
GregKaye 16:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Khestwol Scholarship widely uses the term Islamism and it is fairly used by experts in the field like the Quilliam Foundation in describing Islamist terrorism. There is no overuse of the term. The only controversial thing here is the proposal that terrorism can be ascribed to Islam in any kind of broad sense. This form of terrorism only applies to Islamists and the term here is accurately and precisely used. GregKaye 15:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GregKaye: However, I do not see Islamism as a neutral neologism because its use seems more prevalent among Islamophobes, and in antimuslimist sources. Is that not true? "Islamist terrorism" ascribe terrorism to Islam by even greater degree than "Islamic terrorism" does, because the Islamophobes and antimuslimists who use this term see "Islamism" as the purer representation of the religion of Islam. Plus, we do not even need to go toward a politically controversial title, because the current title "Islamic terrorism" is more commonly used in reliable sources, per Google Ngram. Google Books has about 25,300 results for "Islamic terrorism", but only about 12,400 results for "Islamist terrorism". Hence "Islamic terrorism" is more than twice as common as "Islamist terrorism" in books. Khestwol (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
sigh. Khestwol Islamism "also known as Political Islam, is" I think fairly and straightforwardly defined as "a set of ideologies holding that "Islam should guide social and political as well as personal life". You claim, without substantiation, that this is a loaded term and then trump any suggestion by throwing in mention of Islamophobia as a more extreme neologism. I don't understand why you want terrorism to be directly associated with Islam. Please take a look at http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/about/staff/ . What, how do you think that these people are in any way Islamophobic. Islamist terrorism is quite simply the phraseology that is used by people who best know the subject. What does terrorism have to do with any religion?? Do you then strongly support the association between terrorism and Islam? GregKaye 15:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The part about the capture of Shalit

This was added by ShulMaven (talk · contribs) in the section "Kidnapping as Psychological warfare":

According to psychologist Irwin Mansdorf, Hamas demonstrated effectiveness of kidnapping as a form of psychological warfare in the 2006 peacetime kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit when public pressure forced the government of Israel to release 1027 prisonsers, including 280 convicted of terrorism by Israel, in exchange for his release.

This was from the article Hamas uses kidnapping as a strategic tool by Deutsche Welle. Mansdorf says "However, Mansdorf says, the public identification with Shalit effected the necessary political pressure" and Mansdorf says Hamas is pointedly using kidnapping as a means of psychological warfare to generate this effect" but there is nothing about "Hamas demonstrated effectiveness of kidnapping as a form of psychological warfare".

Deutsche Welle also write "There are also signs that Hamas wants to kidnap Israelis to use as bargaining chips in negotiations later".

Secondly, it is not neutral to say that the Israeli solider Gilad Shalit was "kidnapped" instead of "captured". But what is much worse is the word before. Which "peacetime"? There had been a conflict before that, which can be read about in for example in 2006 Gaza cross-border raid#Background. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology rather than by territory

With the recent ISIS-backed/inspired attacks in Lyon, Tunisia and Kuwait, I'm wondering whether we ought to consider running such incidents in chronological rather than geographical order. The attack in Tunisia, for instance, was clearly aimed at Western tourists rather than the indigenous people. What do other editors think? Alfietucker (talk) 09:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Part about Moving this Article

Yes, I know, another request to move it. The article title is disparaging towards a religion. Either we have similar titles for all religions or move this article to a neutral title. Why make the request again, you may ask: Schilling was just suspended by ESPN. Today, disparaging Islam exists only in the fringe media. Does WP want to be in the fringe circle or truly be an encyclopedia with neutral and fair representation? I want WP to be in the latter section. Who is with me?NiceAdam (talk) 05:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_terrorism&oldid=678067926"