Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudden Jihad Syndrome

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

The result was delete. Khoikhoi 01:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sudden Jihad Syndrome[edit]

Sudden Jihad Syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This is an obscure coinage that hardly warrants its own article. Moreover, the article's author has created a long list of people suffering from this "Syndrome," most of whom have not been linked to the term in any reliable source--in short, it smacks of original research. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 06:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep, the phrase returns 199,000 google hits without quotation marks and 97,000 hits with them in. The term is used multiple times within high profile puplications such as the Boston Globe. Fatmans Liberal attempt to bury the truth should not be allowed to prevail.Prester John 06:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:OR. The article concedes that the phrase is a neologism, but that's not the critical problem; it appears to have some currency among bloggers. The real problem here is that I see only one reference to a reliable source. All other references in the article that associate this term with specific incidents are original research, as the associated articles don't use this term. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 06:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment the article has been alive for less than an hour. I do have references available to all contentions, and I was about to place them in the article I wonder if the purpose of these editors is to abort this article before it even makes the light of day. I do have the ability to recreate the article with said references, if given a half chance by the above editors.Prester John 07:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Just put your references into the article; if people here change their minds, they’ll edit their opinions accordingly. —xyzzyn 07:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The AfD discussion lasts five days...plenty of time to flesh out the article with citations to reliable sources. And please stop commenting / speculating on the motives of other editors. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 07:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research—largely unsubstantiated by references. —xyzzyn 07:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Only the single article uses the term, and only in passing (more as a bit of flavor than truly as a strong indicator of the acceptance of the term). Even the Globe article which does use the term mentions only 3 of the people found in the list. Especially when labeling people with such things as this purported syndrome, the sources have to come first. More importantly, no name should appear in any list without a specific reference using the term. I've removed the list items that have no sources whatsoever, but without verification of the use of this term, none of the other items should stay either. -- Jonel | Speak 07:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless proof is furnished that this is more than just a term coined by Pipes (the Globe article is a good start, but as Jonel points out, none of the other references use it). Additionally, even then we'll need to be careful in ascribing motives to people - Talovic's article as currently written contains a fair level of doubt about any religious motivation in his actions, for example. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • All of the reasoning in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudden jihad syndrome still applies. Uncle G 12:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, just as it was last time. Vague sourcing, mostly WP:OR and some of it's plain guesswork (for instance Gamil al-Batouti's motives can only be guessed at), not to mention being borderline racist. EliminatorJR 13:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep- useful article on an interesting subject Astrotrain 13:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep -- but delete Gamil al-Batouti (who probably should never have been included in the first place). AnonMoos 13:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Well referenced. As the Boston Globe writes, "After all, Haq is not the first example of what scholar Daniel Pipes has called ``Sudden Jihad Syndrome," in which a seemingly nonviolent Muslim erupts in a murderous rampage." I find the article very pertinent. As long as it remains strictly sourced I see no legitimate grounds for deleting it. Bus stop 15:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Well sourced??? Of the five external links, four don't mention "Sudden Jihad Syndrome" at all, while the other merely references Pipes' coining of the term. Indeed, two of the killings in the references make no reference whatsoever to political association. If this is well sourced, I could write a similar article about left-handed killers and call it "Sudden Sinister Syndrome", and it'd be just as worthy. EliminatorJR 16:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Would you even find one source indicating a propensity for left handed people to erupt in violence? I think not. But militant Islam does seem to have this tendency. And there are at least some sources to support that that propensity exists. Bus stop 16:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment But that is not what this AfD is about - it is about the phrase "Sudden Jihad Syndrome". It is *that* which needs to be sourced. If the article was called "Propensity of Islamic people to commit sudden violence" then your point would be valid. EliminatorJR 17:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm only responding to your attempt at making an analogy concerning left handedness. Bus stop 17:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Fair enough, it wasn't a great analogy. But the point remains that this article still isn't sourced well enough. EliminatorJR 17:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I think we should give it a chance. It was just started today. Perhaps more substantial sources can be found. Bus stop 17:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
It has 5 days from the start of the AfD, which should be enough time to source things better if this is in fact a term with wider currency. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Jim Douglas. ITAQALLAH 22:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research, speculation, and editor's political opinion. Someone being quoted making a borderline racist comment in a single newspaper article is not worthy of an entire encyclopedia article. Especially when the phrase is political opinion masquarading as a medical syndrome. Include this in a subsection at Daniel Pipes if it's noteworthy enough. ~CS 22:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment The Boston Globe isn't actually using the term. They are writing about Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, and in doing so quote Daniel Pipes, the man who our article credits as "coining" the term. Pipes used the phrase in his own article about Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar. As far as I can tell, our article only has one citation: Pipes' original comment, plus a Boston Globe article which points to Pipes' same original comment. ~CS 23:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete A recently-coined phrase used by one individual isn't notable; additionally the title is too tongue-in-cheek to be appropriate to a serious encyclopedia.Proabivouac 23:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I disagree. It is not just tongue and groove. It is also serious. And it has been picked up by and used by a major news organization. Bus stop 23:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
No it has not "been picked up and used by a major news organisation". The major news organisation said, in passing, that one particular person coined the term. There's a world of difference between that and the term passing into common usage at the Globe or anywhere else. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per not a soapbox. If some serious psychological study comes up with a similar theory then by all means let there be an article that covers aspects of such a study. Also per User:Proabivouac's logic. (→Netscott) 00:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete poorly-sourced neologism. Cool Hand Luke 00:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless this example of prejudice actually becomes N.DGG 02:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Aminz 07:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree that this is an example of prejudice, but it's not original research for Wikipedia to report that prejudice exists in the world. Pipes's foray into bigotry seems to have attracted something of a following (not surprising, given the current Islamophobic mood) and so is notable. The article must be NPOV, however. As others have noted, the Globe citation isn't to a Globe article that uses the term, as if a journalist found it a helpful way to describe the world. Instead, it's a column by the right-winger Jeff Jacoby, who merely cited Pipes. This should be corrected. The article should also be balanced by the inclusion of criticism, but I can't find much, although there's a good savaging by a blogger: "When airhead heiress Lizzie Grubman drove her SUV into a crowd in 2001, injuring almost twice as many people as Taheria-azar, then attempted to flee the scene while showing no concern for her victims, nobody started blathering about 'Sudden Rich White Asshole Syndrome'." (from [1] - he even linked to our Lizzie Grubman article) The problem seems to be that most sensible commentators consider Pipes's silliness to be self-evident and not worth remarking upon. JamesMLane t c 09:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: I don't quite follow the reasoning here. I would've thought that if the wider community (or "most sensible commentators") haven't touched Pipes' term, that would be a reason against giving it its own article - perhaps a reason for adding it into Pipes' own article, in the manner in which other turns of phrase peculiar to certain commentators are to be found in their articles. If Pipes is the only person who uses the term to any serious extent, and if the best we can do outside of his work is to find an article which links back to him and him alone, then we're dealing with someone inventing a term which has little or no currency, aren't we? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment: Sensible commentators haven't touched it, but there are 60,000+ hits from the likes of Little Green Footballs and other sloughs of irrationality. Generally, a blog doesn't meet the standards of WP:RS as a source for a fact -- but a fact about blogs, such as that many blogs use a term, can be considered when we try to adjudicate notabiliity. In addition, there are at least a couple uses that are neither Pipes himself nor right-wing blogs, e.g. Investor's Business Daily. My bottom line is that the term is out there enough that someone might see it, be unsure whether it's a real "Syndrome" or just some Islamophobe's rhetorical device, and come to Wikipedia seeking enlightenment. This article presents uses by Pipes and others and now includes a criticism that I added. It will therefore enlighten that hypothetical reader more than would a redirect to Daniel Pipes; the latter article couldn't readily accommodate all this detail. JamesMLane t c 20:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, not every phrase coined by a commentator needs an article. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 00:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. The term is a phrase which if I recall correctly was coined by Daniel Pipes to refer to the phenomenon of sudden violent acts by formely perceived to be mild mannerd Muslim individuals such as Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar and more recently Sulejman Talović. The phrase has nothing to do with racism or prejudice but simply describes a noticeable social phonemena which has every indication of being religiously motivated. As an encyclopedia we ought to provide an article to cover this important topic.Daniel Pipes describes Sudden Jihad Syndrome here.--CltFn 05:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - The first sentence causes me to wonder if you've even read the article - the history of the term is in there. I've removed the link to Pipes site, which is already in the article for those who need to see the source material. CovenantD 06:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from editing other editors comments in an AFD discussion.--CltFn 12:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - additionally, that fact that one particular commentator coined the term doesn't confer notability upon it. The straw-man argument about prejudice doesn't stand up, since nobody's suggesting that the article should be deleted for reasons of racism or prejudice (whether contained therein or on the part of the people advocating deletion). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
There will be some that insist that the word is not notable and others who say it is, but looking beyond this we ought to ask ourselves, that if a readers comes accross the term in the internet, which they inevitably will if they read any anti-jihad blogs and which to find out what it means by searching Wikipedia, they ought to find an article that explains what it means. Thats the whole point of Wikipedia is it not?--CltFn 12:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
You're going to hate me for saying this, but yes and no. Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and thus should contain lots of useful information for anyone who wants to look. However, no it should not contain everything in the world. Where our standards are concerned, it just doesn't seem to measure up. Don't worry, though, since it's equal opportunity discrimination - a term used by the political Left requires just as much sourcing and notability to be kept. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge into the Daniel Pipes article. Arrow740 17:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Why? Bus stop 17:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Would you include everything in this article in the Daniel Pipes article? If not, which information that's now in the article would you drop? JamesMLane t c 18:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Another non-notable political neoblogism. Dragomiloff 00:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Jim Douglas--Sa.vakilian 14:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete it is stupid and not notable to have seperate article. (Do it quickly otherwise I will have sudden jihad syndrome -:) )--- 10:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ALM scientist (talk • contribs).
  • Comment Are you suggesting Sudden Deletion Syndrome? Bus stop 14:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Daniel Pipes#Opinions or weak keep. As noted by a number of editors above (and confirmed upon reading the article), the term is used only in passing in the Boston Globe source. The article in which Pipes uses the term for the first time is not an independent source (and, if the numbers are true, ... very depressing as to the state of mind of the United States public). The term is is, however, addressed more non-trivially in a few other sources. However, I think this does deserve a mention in the biographical article. In any case, I oppose deletion as there should be a redirect from this term to the Daniel Pipes article (it is a plausible search term). -- Black Falcon 17:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete/Merge as noted above. I hold that this phrase is not notable enough to have its own article but since Pipes is notable it should be put in his page. A1octopus 20:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Netscott. Optionally a redirect can be created afterwards to that famous coiner of trite phrases, Daniel Pipes. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I hardly consider him a "famous coiner of trite phrases." Daniel Pipes happens to be a well respected commentator on current events. Bus stop 20:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome&oldid=112218371"