66.69.128.146 (talk) repairs. WP:NPA is not an official policy, and you are supposed to refactor rather than delete comments out of hand. I'd expect an admin to know that Mr. Black |
|||
Line 122: | Line 122: | ||
:I repeat calls for those who object to be more specific about why they object and come up with some freaking sources of their own already. As it stands, the source is valid, the material should be included until they can come up with a countersource or a better explanation than "I want to attack the messenger." |
:I repeat calls for those who object to be more specific about why they object and come up with some freaking sources of their own already. As it stands, the source is valid, the material should be included until they can come up with a countersource or a better explanation than "I want to attack the messenger." |
||
::The internet is full of a billion piddling newsletters and so-called "magazines" that can give you "proof" that aliens are among us, black helicopters are flying over Montana, or that <name your group> are trying to take over the world. If you can cite an actual specific Pentagon document that's been seen by a notable person (preferably one who is not wearing a tinfoil hat and is not heavily medicated) I would be pleased to have it in the article. But like they say in science, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". The onus is on the person or persons who want this bizaare stuff in the article to prove that it comes from a legitimate source and is not another half-baked Internet crank with a creepy agenda. --[[User:LeeHunter|Lee Hunter]] 01:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:51, 16 December 2005
Archives of older discussions can be found here:
Quality of writing
Big problems on this front in this article. Could other editors comment on the compositional quality of the article as a whole, please?
I'm thinking of passages like the following, which sound distinctly un-encyclopedic to me.
- The Saudi regime is perceived as being too closely associated with American foreign policy, particularly through granting permission to the United States to conduct military operations and establish bases on what is viewed as sacred soil. ("Is perceived" -- by whom, specifically, and where is the citation? "Is viewed as" -- ditto. The sentence gives the distinct impression that American military forces are still based in Saudi Arabia. Last time I checked, they had decamped for Qatar.)
- The extent of support for "Islamist terrorism" within the Muslim population is disputed, although it is generally agreed that only the most extremist fringes support it. (Here we have a similarly dubious use of passive voice, which shows up, once again, twice in same sentence. As for "only the most extremist fringes" it is woefully non-specific)
- The problem is, of course, the term " creating disorder in the land " for which the Islamist terrorist see their enemies as those creating disorder in the land of Islam. (Does this sentence parse? Does "of course" even belong in an encyclopedia? Does the reader have any idea which specific "terrorists" we are referring to, and, for that matter, how we are able to read their minds? Note, too, the embarrassing singular/plural disagreement: "the Islamist terrorist see their enemies...". This passage could have been lifted -- and for all I know, was lifted -- from someone's 3:00 am draft of a term paper.)
It's hard to imagine any of the above showing up in, say, the Columbia Encyclopedia.
Now, before somebody asks me to get to work on improving the deformed sentences above, let me share my firm conviction that the very best way to repair them and their brethren is to delete them in their entirety.
Failing that, perhaps some other editors could discuss the best remedy for the vast chunks of this article that are written at this level? Perhaps a notice up front warning readers of the generally terrible quality of the prose that follows, and appealing for their help? BrandonYusufToropov 13:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Ohanian's edits and more!
I think Ohanian's edits were not exactly proper.... you cannot say 'The phrase "or for creating disorder in the land" has been misused by the Islamist terrorists' because, well... who is to say they are misusing it. Terrorists are Muslim, even if their mindset is not followed by all Muslims and you cannot be saying that their viewpoint isn't Islamic. So, it isn't misuse, it's just a different and more intolerant use. Not to mention that the Qur'an quote analysis on most of the stuff here is original research.
Also, getting into the habit of interpretting subjects by single Qur'an quotes is not how Islamic jurisprudence works (and is why we need to cite more scholarly sources and not just Qur'an). Fiqahs have to know a great deal about thOct e Qu'ran and hadith as a whole before they can rule because of the intricacies so that they can know the whole story. So, we should make that clear instead of focussing solely on quotes. gren グレン 12:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- I've changed "misused" to "used". --Lee Hunter 13:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
== David Gibson == comment on sentence presenting viewpoint The sentence "Also, to Al-Qaeda in particular, the world is viewed as a struggle between their extreme Islamist ideology on one hand and Zionism, Christianity and the secular West on the other." Says that it is the view of Al-Qaeda. I do not believe that Al-Qaeda views their ideology as "extreme Islamist ideology". First, they do not believe that they are extreme. While I disagree with them. That does appear to be their view. Second, they do not view themselves as Islamists but as the only true representatives of Islam. Thus, the term Islamic is appropriate in this sentence since it is purporting to present the view of Al-Qaeda and not the view of the author of the article. The sentence should read "Also, to Al-Qaeda in particular, the world is viewed as a struggle between their Islamic ideology on one hand and Zionism, Christianity and the secular West on the other." == David Gibson Oct 13, 2005 12:35 PM EST
Tor vandals
The last anon also vandalized a user page besides revert warring here. He is using the Tor proxy program. Any IP that continues in this revert war should be indefinitely blocked as it's an open proxy. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-3 22:10
Nonsense, as shown to you in IRC. 129.7.35.213 22:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- I wasn't referring to your IP. Care to explain why the 72.9 IP is listed on the Tor proxy list? Get over yourself. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-3 22:35
- Apart from that, 129.7.35.213. Can you tell us about those Australian sources? Also, apart from the existence/inexistence of those sources, or those deliberately trying to portray the faith in the best possible light even at the expense of truthfulness is considered POV in both Australia and Wiki planet. Cheers -- Svest 22:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up™
- No he can't. I blocked him for vandalizing User:Anonymous editor. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-3 22:48
- Lol. User has been blacklisted. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- SMH. Wikipedia really drives people crazy. I need a wikibreak to take care of my GF. She even vandalized my usertalk yesterday for being in love with this place and not w/ her. At the end of the day, X.X.X.X comes out talking nonsense about Australians who've said nothing and we trying to be serious!. Wiki me up™
- Lol. User has been blacklisted. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- No he can't. I blocked him for vandalizing User:Anonymous editor. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-3 22:48
Why?
I don't understand why the part regarding Australian Imams keeps getting removed. It is properly sourced.
- Welcome back. Who are those Imams? -- Wiki me up™
- Anon IP Blocked again for evading ban. Replying to these guys not necessary, svest :). --a.n.o.n.y.m t 02:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- lol! Well, it seems very hard for me to know exactly about their schedule! Svest 02:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- Anon IP Blocked again for evading ban. Replying to these guys not necessary, svest :). --a.n.o.n.y.m t 02:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I was wrongly blocked. And the Imams in question are named in the article.
Suggested removal
"...particularly secular Muslims as well as those who support Muslim liberalism, do not accept that attacks on civilians can ever be justified by Islam."
This implies that practicing, conservative Muslims are more likely to support civilian attacks which is difficult to support POV. Also I'd suggest that for a practicing Muslim, "secular Muslim" is a contradiction-in-terms. I'd suggest removing the caveat. Marskell 10:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- It it entirely feasible to maintain a secular Muslim identity, particularly in the Balkan and Black Sea countries. Compare "secular Christian" or "multilayered identities". Please double-check yourself for possible hidden agendas when you delete or edit. --Big Adamsky 10:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- "Please double-check yourself for possible hidden agendas when you delete or edit." LOL. If you're referring to removing the sentence that began "Previously...", it was entirely unqualified and assumptive. "Previously..." who where when?
- Of course it's possible to self-identify as a secular Muslim; I was just suggesting that for those who practice, such an identification would be bogus. The Five Pillars are fairly explicit. If you don't pray, fast, donate, make an attempt to go to Mecca, and (most obviously) submit to faith in Allah you aren't a Muslim in the eyes of people who do.
- Finally, you don't answer the main complaint: the line tacitly suggests that conservative Muslims give support for targeting civilians. That's a very fair complaint, not a hidden agenda. Marskell 11:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- No, you missed the point: Namely that someone whose parents are Muslim (culturally or otherwise), does not lose his or her personal identity if he or she choses to ignore any or all of the dogmatic pillars. Secular identity does not (necessarily) contradict religion, as you seem to suggest. Nor does it constitute atheism, except in islamic law. The paragraph simply stated that secular Muslims are far more likely to have a broad non-biased world-view than traditional, orthodox or fundamentalist Muslims and that this may affect their likeliness to consider Islam and Islamism two very separate concepts.
The line specifically references attacks on civilans, not a general worldview. Should we or should we not suggest that traditional or conservative Muslims would be more likely to support attacks on civilans than their liberal counterparts? As it stands that's precisely what we suggest.
I have absolutely no desire to go round in circles on the religious identity argument but I must ask: how did I miss the points about parentage and abiding by the "dogmatic pillars" when you never referenced them? Marskell 12:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Well, we went round in circles on a point that was ultimately unrelated (who is a Muslim?) but I haven't seen an argument that the caveat is not POV. I have removed it. Marskell 08:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Dates in Examples of Islamist Terrorist section
I properly formatted all but one of the dates in this section. (It took a bit of detective work, half of them were in US date format, the rest in European date format). I can't determine whether "7/5/02 - Bombing in al-Arbaa, Algeria. 49 dead, 117 injured" took places on 5 July or 7 May. Any help is appreciated. Peyna 00:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
User:129.7.35.213 and User:129.7.35.102's edits
Don't you racists have better things to do than edit war over cited material?
- Dear anonymous editor, just because you have a citation doesn't mean that it is automatically encyclopedic. Yours truly, "Rascist". --Lee Hunter 18:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Considering I spell properly and you're just a racist... go soak your head. OR do some real research rather than being a censor monger.
- Please do not make personal attacks - Tεxτurε 19:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Please do not be a censor monger.
- Please do not make personal attacks - Tεxτurε 19:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Considering I spell properly and you're just a racist... go soak your head. OR do some real research rather than being a censor monger.
Enough of this name calling. Let's do this the proper way. I am not knowledgeable on the topic, so forgive me when I have to remove material and demand attribution or rewording without doing it myself.
- Islamist groups in non-Islamic nations around the world always try to portray themselves as respectable, and in many cases attempt to use the free speech rights of Western nations to promote hateful ideologies. These fit with the Islamic doctrines of Taqiyya and Kitman, which explicitly allow Muslims to lie and deceive infidels in the goal of furthering Islam's spread.
Not neutral, obviously, and not sourced. The paragraph implies islamist groups are never to be trusted. The Taqiyya article does not talk about "lying to infidels", it talks about permission to pretend to renounce faith under stress. That's slightly more subtle. JRM · Talk 21:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- A recent US Pentagon report indicates that US intelligence agencies analyzing the Koran are finding it not to be a document of religion hijacked by terrorists, but a manual of war followed by said terrorists. [1]
The internal document explains that Islam divides offensive jihad into a "three-phase attack strategy" for gaining control of lands for Allah. The first phase is the "Meccan," or weakened, period, whereby a small Muslim minority asserts itself through largely peaceful and political measures involving Islamic NGOs -- such as the Islamic Society of North America, which investigators say has its roots in the militant Muslim Brotherhood, and Muslim pressure groups, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations, whose leaders are on record expressing their desire to Islamize America.
In the second "preparation" phase, a "reasonably influential" Muslim minority starts to turn more militant. The briefing uses Britain and the Netherlands as examples.
And in the final jihad period, or "Medina Stage," a large minority uses its strength of numbers and power to rise up against the majority, as Muslim youth recently demonstrated in terrorizing France, the Pentagon paper notes.
Problem with this is that the quote is from what appears to be a blog. That's not a good source to get your information from. Paul Sperry, the author, claims to get it from "a new Pentagon briefing paper I've obtained". That means Paul Sperry is our primary source, but as a blogger Paul Sperry (correct me if I'm wrong) is not a notable or necessarily reliable source. JRM · Talk 21:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- I moved the remaining section down further. It should not be ahead of basic sections describing the topic. The information moved here to the talk page is highly questionable without a verifying source. The cite used is an extremist right-wing site with no apologies for being so. - Tεxτurε 21:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I've reinstated the remaining quote from The Australian, sans the polemic. The section as a whole is now rather sparse, of course, but there's nothing wrong with that. JRM · Talk 21:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- I've tried to clean up the language on the other report. Whatever your personal biases, Frontpage Magazine is a longstanding journalistic website, and they're directly quoting the document. We don't quibble if CBS or NBC or the LA Times quote a "document" that's not available for public consumption, so we have to give FP the same benefit of the doubt. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.35.102 (talk • contribs)
- Another user has just reminded me that an arbcom ruling has said that all his edits should be reverted. This would make a page protection inappropriate in the face of an arbcom decision. [2] - Tεxτurε 21:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Lies will get you nowhere. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.35.102 (talk • contribs)
- Here's the ruling: [3] - Tεxτurε 22:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- False accusations will still get you nowhere.
- Another user has just reminded me that an arbcom ruling has said that all his edits should be reverted. This would make a page protection inappropriate in the face of an arbcom decision. [2] - Tεxτurε 21:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- The nice thing about AlJihadi is that they're easily refutable. And what is this violating a block that you speak of? - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.35.102 (talk • contribs)
It would be much more helpful if POV warriors like "Anonymous Editor" would kindly say WHY they revert, especially when they refer others to the talk page. I'm reverting this on the basis that "Anonymous Editor" is a known edit warrior with no respect for facts.
- Just reverted that [snip] "Texture" again. Frontpagemag is a news source, not a blog. Yes, it covers things that the PC media try their best to hide. But they've yet to be wrong. Then again, I expect as much from the [editors] who accuse everyone of being sockpuppets rather than engage in real debate.
Edit warring
Edit warring is bad. Don't do it. --Phroziac . o º O (mmmmm chocolate!) 22:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm going to place a note here: the hand of user:Anonymous Editor is readily apparent even if he personally has made no remarks here in the latest round. Numbers are fine and good but meatpuppetry and bad-faith gaming of the system to avoid 3RR aren't, and WP:EW specifically states that both sides of an edit war are supposed to be dealt with equally.
- Whatever the specific complaints about the content, which seem to revolve about certain people wanting to attack the source (upon cursory examination, the source is valid), their behavior is deplorable and completely unhelpful, as is the behavior of admins who hand out large-scale blocks and admins who take accusations of being someone who left long ago and block on that assumption, and worse yet leave gloating talk-page messages about it, is even more deplorable.
- I repeat calls for those who object to be more specific about why they object and come up with some freaking sources of their own already. As it stands, the source is valid, the material should be included until they can come up with a countersource or a better explanation than "I want to attack the messenger."
- The internet is full of a billion piddling newsletters and so-called "magazines" that can give you "proof" that aliens are among us, black helicopters are flying over Montana, or that <name your group> are trying to take over the world. If you can cite an actual specific Pentagon document that's been seen by a notable person (preferably one who is not wearing a tinfoil hat and is not heavily medicated) I would be pleased to have it in the article. But like they say in science, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". The onus is on the person or persons who want this bizaare stuff in the article to prove that it comes from a legitimate source and is not another half-baked Internet crank with a creepy agenda. --Lee Hunter 01:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)