Talk:Jihadi tourism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Article focus[edit]

I see this article recently closed at AfD with a default to 'keep' as not having reached a consensus. There was a strong case for moving it to a pagename that better reflects the content, but that would depend how a consensus would define this article as being about a neologism, Jihadi tourism, or anything else. The article itself has no clear focus; it starts off as would it be about a neologism, but seems to mutate into an article about meeting places where the mujahideen gather to plan terrorism attacks, and museums. Several of the refs use the term, but that does not make it any more a neologism than, say, 'sex tourism' to Pattaya, or 'pedo tourism' to Pnom Phen, or 'Grand Prix tourism' for the followers of Formula 1, or the 'gastro tourism' on the French food trail. However, a closer look at the actual lexical definitions of the Arabic word jihad and the semantics of its various uses, might provide enough background to make a decision. Up to the experts. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

First line[edit]

Just wanted to transfer one of my concerns from the AfD to here: In the links I've looked at so far, there doesn't appear to be a source for the definition that opens this article: "Jihadi tourism, also referred to as Jihad tourism or Jihadist tourism, is a term sometimes used to describe tourism involving scenes of conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims, or to exhibitions displaying artifacts and images of such struggles." Rather, this definition appears to be inferred by an editor from the term's use in news coverage. I realize this may seem like a slightly pedantic point, but if "jihadi tourism" is a notable enough subject to merit a Wikipedia article for its definition and elaboration, I think it's important that we have sources that are seeking to define it, too. I'd suggest this definition be deleted unless a reliable source can be found that discusses (rather than just uses) a similar one. While I think whichever editor added this definition acted in perfect good faith (and appears to be right, besides), I'm wary of seeing Wikipedia infer or create a definition for a term rather than report one. I'm concerned that the former appears to be happening here, but I might have just not opened the right source yet. Khazar (talk) 06:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Added citation needed tag pending response. Khazar (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
How about ""Jihadi tourism, (or Jihad tourism or Jihadist tourism) is a term used for several different types of tourism related in several different ways to Jihad, or conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims. In its earliest recorded usage, it was slang shorthand to describe travel to places that promote Jihad by offering training in guerilla warfare, or relatedly to describe the infrastructure recruiting such travelers. Later it was extended to tourism to places where tourists expected to meet representatives of international groups such as Al Qaida that self-describe as engaging in Jihad. More recently, the term has been extended to describe tourism involving places or exhibitions related to the history of Jihad." Very rough draft there, improve or reject as you wish. betsythedevine (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
This seems like an improvement to me, but I'm still concerned that this article is doing a bit of original research in combining these different manifestations of the term under a single header at all. It seems comparable to some of the examples of Frankenstein building. While not as clearly erroneous as the examples in that article, I don't yet see a compelling reason that the visits to the Landmark museum should be yoked to travel for the purposes of joining a Somali terror group, until we can find a reliable source that links these two things also. Or a source explaining that the media's application of "jihadi tourism" derives from its use in intelligence communities, rather than being an independent neologism. Otherwise, I'm not sure we can conclusively say that they're not two entirely different phenomena for which the same term has been independently created--it seems like we're looking at subjects for two different articles here.
I'm also reluctant to extrapolate outward from the Landmark example that this term can mean "tourism involving scenes of conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims, or to exhibitions displaying artifacts and images of such struggles", when the only example we seem to have of this usage so far is the news coverage of the Landmark museum. Anybody able to turn up a second example of this definition of Jihadi tourism, or is it limited to the Landmark and its nearby exhibits? If so, I wonder if this doesn't just belong in the Landmark article for now.-- Khazar (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps just splitting this into "Jihadi tourism (terrorism)" and "Jihadi tourism (Lebanon)" would address my concern, until we have a source that links the two uses. -- Khazar (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
My concerns resolved by latest edits--thanks. Khazar (talk) 00:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)