TarnishedPath (talk | contribs) →WP:SYNTH editing: Reply Tag: Reply |
→WP:SYNTH editing: Reply Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply |
||
Line 158: | Line 158: | ||
:::::::Kashmiri was confused and thoughts Wikipedia was about convincing editors. Wikipedia is about reliable sources. I will change your to one’s to make this more clear. [[User:Drsmoo|Drsmoo]] ([[User talk:Drsmoo|talk]]) 12:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC) |
:::::::Kashmiri was confused and thoughts Wikipedia was about convincing editors. Wikipedia is about reliable sources. I will change your to one’s to make this more clear. [[User:Drsmoo|Drsmoo]] ([[User talk:Drsmoo|talk]]) 12:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC) |
||
::::::::Pinging @[[User:Tamzin|Tamzin]], can I get you attention here please in light of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADrsmoo&diff=1171034423&oldid=1169957993#ARBPIA_logged_warning previous warnings]. [[User:TarnishedPath|''TarnishedPath'']]<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]]</sup> 12:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC) |
::::::::Pinging @[[User:Tamzin|Tamzin]], can I get you attention here please in light of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADrsmoo&diff=1171034423&oldid=1169957993#ARBPIA_logged_warning previous warnings]. [[User:TarnishedPath|''TarnishedPath'']]<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]]</sup> 12:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::I’m confused what you’re upset about tarnished path. There was no personal attack. [[User:Drsmoo|Drsmoo]] ([[User talk:Drsmoo|talk]]) 12:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:38, 14 October 2023
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Requested move 2 September 2023
List of Islamist terrorist attacks → List of Islamic terrorist attacks – The term "Islamist" is a POV term and should be replaced with a more neutral term such as "Islamic". TarnishedPathtalk 10:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- Question: Could you explain what you see as the difference in meaning between "Islamist" and "Islamic" and why you think that the former is more POV than the latter? Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 11:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- The issue as I see is that according Google the definition of Islamist is "an advocate or supporter of Islamic fundamentalism; a person who advocates increasing the influence of Islamic law in politics and society", which is a loaded term. Whereas Islamic simply means pertaining to Islam. TarnishedPathtalk 05:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Google is clearly confused: the reason why its examples require 'radical' or 'hardline' to be placed in front of "Islamism" is because the term does not imply that strong emphasis. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Dictionary.com gives "a supporter or advocate of Islamic fundamentalism" for Islamist. TarnishedPathtalk 10:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- I doubt we can assume that most Wikipedia readers know this distinction between the words ‘’Islamic’’ and ‘’Islamist’’. Do most know that, technically, non-fundamentalist Muslims are not Islamist?
- According to WP:MTAU:
Strive to make each part of every article as understandable as possible to the widest audience of readers who are likely to be interested in that material.
The title should not assume that the reader knows a rather oscure distinction such as between ‘’Islamic’’ and “Islamist’’. NightHeron (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)- I'm with you on trying to make language accessible as far as possible. I gave the definitions to answer your query. From a technical point of view the average punter would probably think of them interchangeably unfortunately, so from a technical point of view I don't think it makes a difference. One however does have a more POV meaning from my perspective and that was the logic for my move request. See also @Rreagan007's argument below which is another potentially good reason for a move. @Buidhe also suggested an alternative which I'm not opposed to. TarnishedPathtalk 11:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- I too have no objection to Buidhe’s suggestion of ‘’Islamic extremist attacks’’. If we adopt that suggestion, it would then be a good idea to change other article and list titles to avoid implying a connection between terrorism and religiosity. For example, Jewish religious terrorism should then be Jewish extremist attacks. AFAIK there’s no evidence that most terrorists were known as particularly religious (whether Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, etc.). NightHeron (talk) 11:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Between the two words attacks (suggested by Buidhe) and terrorism (as in current titles), I would favor ‘’attacks’’ for lists and ‘’terrorism’’ for articles, because articles cover other aspects such as the history of organizations that have sponsored terrorism, whereas lists include only attacks. NightHeron (talk) 12:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. TarnishedPathtalk 00:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'm with you on trying to make language accessible as far as possible. I gave the definitions to answer your query. From a technical point of view the average punter would probably think of them interchangeably unfortunately, so from a technical point of view I don't think it makes a difference. One however does have a more POV meaning from my perspective and that was the logic for my move request. See also @Rreagan007's argument below which is another potentially good reason for a move. @Buidhe also suggested an alternative which I'm not opposed to. TarnishedPathtalk 11:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Dictionary.com gives "a supporter or advocate of Islamic fundamentalism" for Islamist. TarnishedPathtalk 10:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Google is clearly confused: the reason why its examples require 'radical' or 'hardline' to be placed in front of "Islamism" is because the term does not imply that strong emphasis. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- The issue as I see is that according Google the definition of Islamist is "an advocate or supporter of Islamic fundamentalism; a person who advocates increasing the influence of Islamic law in politics and society", which is a loaded term. Whereas Islamic simply means pertaining to Islam. TarnishedPathtalk 05:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: One could argue the exact opposite, i.e.: "Islamic" is a POV term, and that "Islamist" is correct in properly referring to political Islam or Islamism, of which terror attacks are a function, being extremist political violence. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:29, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Strong oppose per this consensus. — kashmīrī TALK 13:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment There is Islamic terrorism which says aka Islamist terrorism so there seems to be some confusion around. Not sure that I like either one, maybe it needs extremist/m in there somewhere as in Islamic extremism (aka Islamist extremism, duh). Is there any analysis of which terms are preferred in serious sources? Selfstudier (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. Inserting "extremist" makes it clear that there's no suggestion that Islam supports terrorism, only that an unrepresentative extremist faction does, just as is the case in other religions where extremists have resorted to terrorism. NightHeron (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see why we need to throw in extra words and use different adjectives just because it's Islam-related. When Christians are involved it's just Christian terrorism and everyone seems fine with that. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- If we change the title to include the word extremist along with "Islamic" or "Islamist", which I think would be a good idea, we should additionally change Christian terrorism to Christian extremist terrorism and Jewish religious terrorism to Jewish extremist terrorism or something similar, for the same reason. Terrorism is not religious, at least not in the commonly accepted meaning of the word religious. NightHeron (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with @NightHeron. We should change it everywhere not just here. --BeLucky (talk) 12:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Kashmiri How about @NightHeron's proposal !? --BeLucky (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- @BeLucky, see @NightHeron's comment at the bellow. They have started a discussion at talk:Jewish religious terrorism for that page. TarnishedPathtalk 11:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- @TarnishedPath Yes. I have shown Support there. Thanks for info anyways. --BeLucky (talk) 11:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- @BeLucky, I only just noticed after I left my last message. Be well. TarnishedPathtalk 11:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- @TarnishedPath Yes. I have shown Support there. Thanks for info anyways. --BeLucky (talk) 11:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with @NightHeron. We should change it everywhere not just here. --BeLucky (talk) 12:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- If we change the title to include the word extremist along with "Islamic" or "Islamist", which I think would be a good idea, we should additionally change Christian terrorism to Christian extremist terrorism and Jewish religious terrorism to Jewish extremist terrorism or something similar, for the same reason. Terrorism is not religious, at least not in the commonly accepted meaning of the word religious. NightHeron (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see why we need to throw in extra words and use different adjectives just because it's Islam-related. When Christians are involved it's just Christian terrorism and everyone seems fine with that. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. Inserting "extremist" makes it clear that there's no suggestion that Islam supports terrorism, only that an unrepresentative extremist faction does, just as is the case in other religions where extremists have resorted to terrorism. NightHeron (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose What I would support is the remove of any entry that doesn't explicitly mention 'Islamist'. Islamist is very specific term, and if this list is to remain it needs very specific inclusion criteria. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- I think the word terrorist should be avoided in wikivoice due to strong connotations and vagueness of definition (academics cannot agree, either.) So I think the list should be renamed: List of Islamic extremist attacks. (t · c) buidhe 22:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Buidhe, I'm not opposed to that suggestion. Either List of Islamic extremist attacks or List of Islamic extremist incidents would work. TarnishedPathtalk 05:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- The issue you arrive at if you actually attempt to pursue precision here is that Islamic extremism, Islamic fundamentalism and Jihadism can be defined as slightly different religious and political ideologies. The list presumably conflates all of these, in addition to muddling itself by including other acts of political violence instigated for other motives, but also conducted by groups broadly construed as Islamist. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes the list is problematic. There seems to have been a presumption by editors past that acts committed in certain geographical locations, by persons of specific nationalities or any violent act involving Muslims can be massaged to fit their narrative. In short WP:OR. As far as precision goes I wouldn't consider jihadism to be of much use given it is a mere neologism. TarnishedPathtalk 10:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- The issue you arrive at if you actually attempt to pursue precision here is that Islamic extremism, Islamic fundamentalism and Jihadism can be defined as slightly different religious and political ideologies. The list presumably conflates all of these, in addition to muddling itself by including other acts of political violence instigated for other motives, but also conducted by groups broadly construed as Islamist. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Buidhe, I'm not opposed to that suggestion. Either List of Islamic extremist attacks or List of Islamic extremist incidents would work. TarnishedPathtalk 05:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support per WP:COMMONNAME. "Islamic terrorist" is much more common than "Islamist terrorist" based on the Google Ngrams. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- That Ngrams is hardly decisive alone, and the distinction narrows to almost nothing if you add "attack", for the full phrase; in addition, this does not address any of the other concerns. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Fwiw, the BBC news style guide says-
- "Islamic/Islamist
- Islamic simply describes the religion, the equivalent of Christian, Hindu or Jewish - so we might talk about "Islamic texts".
- The term Islamist has come to refer to those who derive a political course from Islam. It should not be used as a noun to imply violence. As an adjective, we might use it to describe "Islamist militants", "extreme Islamists" or "radical Islamist groups" - but equally "Islamist politician" or "Islamist country". However, we should not jump to the conclusion individuals are motivated by "Islamist extremism" etc unless we have reason to do so." Selfstudier (talk) 08:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- SupportList of Islamic extremist attacks per Buidhe.Selfstudier (talk) 12:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support: List of Islamic extremist attacks too - as both slightly more all-encompassing, as this list already is: dragging in radical Islamists, Islamic fundamentalists, Jihadists etc.; and also more neutral, per MOS:TERRORIST, which is doubly appropriate for sweeping and poorly sourced content aggregations such as this. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support: List of Islamic extremist attacks per Buidhe. NightHeron (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: I started a move request from Jewish religious terrorism to Jewish extremist terrorism on that article's talk-page, see [1]. (The proposed title is currently a redirect.) NightHeron (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- @NightHeron @Buidhe @Selfstudier We need to consider this aspect also: Both religious terrorism and extremist terrorism involve the use of violence for ideological purposes, the key distinction lies in the primary motivation and targets. Religious terrorism is driven by religious beliefs and often targets those perceived as threats to those beliefs, while extremist terrorism can be rooted in various ideologies and may have a broader range of targets. It's important to note that not all religious individuals or extremist groups engage in terrorism, and the majority of religious and extremist movements are non-violent. --BeLucky (talk) 06:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- I am not sure what you mean. There is no contradiction between being religious and extremist. Perhaps you mean terrorism motivated by religious and secular motives (but is there a clear cut distinction in every case?) (t · c) buidhe 06:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Religious terrorism and extremist terrorism are two distinct but related concepts within the broader category of terrorism. While they share some common characteristics, they also have important differences:
- Motivation:
- Religious Terrorism: This type of terrorism is driven primarily by religious beliefs and ideologies. Perpetrators believe that their actions are justified or even mandated by their interpretation of religious texts or doctrines. Religious terrorists often see themselves as defending or advancing their faith.
- Extremist Terrorism: Extremist terrorism is more ideologically driven and may not necessarily be rooted in religion. Extremist groups can have a variety of motivations, including political, social, economic, or cultural ideologies. Religion may or may not play a central role in their extremist beliefs.
- Targets:
- Religious Terrorism: The primary targets of religious terrorism are often individuals or groups who are perceived as a threat to the religious beliefs of the terrorists. This can include people of other faiths, religious minorities, or even members of their own religious community who are seen as deviating from the "true" faith.
- Extremist Terrorism: Extremist terrorism can target a wider range of entities, including governments, political institutions, military forces, and civilian populations. The focus is often on advancing the extremist group's broader ideological goals.
- Examples:
- Religious Terrorism: Groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS are well-known examples of religious terrorist organizations. They have used violence to advance their interpretation of Islam and establish Islamic states.
- Extremist Terrorism: Groups like the Irish Republican Army (IRA), Basque Homeland and Liberty (ETA), and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) are examples of extremist organizations with varied motivations, including nationalist, separatist, and environmentalist ideologies.
- Global vs. Local:
- Religious Terrorism: Religious terrorist groups often have global ambitions and seek to spread their ideology or establish a transnational caliphate, which can lead to attacks on a global scale.
- Extremist Terrorism: Extremist groups may primarily focus on local or regional issues, although some can also become international threats if their ideologies resonate with a broader audience.
- Recruitment and Radicalization:
- Religious Terrorism: Recruitment in religious terrorism often involves religious indoctrination and radicalization within religious communities or online spaces where extremist interpretations of religious texts are propagated.
- Extremist Terrorism: Extremist groups may employ a range of recruitment strategies, which can include exploiting grievances related to political, social, or economic issues, as well as online radicalization.
- Motivation:
- --BeLucky (talk) 06:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- There isn't an obvious distinction, and religious terrorism is a problematic term though throws us several issues, which is why its page has a section dedicated to criticism of the concept. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Religious terrorism and extremist terrorism are two distinct but related concepts within the broader category of terrorism. While they share some common characteristics, they also have important differences:
- Not all individuals who hold extreme beliefs engage in terrorism, and the vast majority of people who practice a religion or hold extreme views do not support or engage in violence. Terrorism should not be equated with any particular religion or ideology, as it is a tactic employed by a small subset of extremists within various belief systems. --BeLucky (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- None of what you write is a reason not to adopt the title Islamic extremist terrorism. Logically, that title means that we’re talking about the extremists who resort to terrorism and have some motivation connected to their version of Islam. NightHeron (talk) 10:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- @NightHeron I am just explaining the terms for any confusion. See my conclusion: "tactic employed by a small subset of extremists within various belief systems". So it's a upvote explanation for the move to new name as suggested. --BeLucky (talk) 12:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- My explanation is in response to the the earlier confusion of @Selfstudier 14:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC) . --BeLucky (talk) 12:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. NightHeron (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Selfstudier's earlier Comment:
- There is Islamic terrorism which says aka Islamist terrorism so there seems to be some confusion around. Not sure that I like either one, maybe it needs extremist/m in there somewhere as in Islamic extremism (aka Islamist extremism, duh). Is there any analysis of which terms are preferred in serious sources? --BeLucky (talk) 13:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. NightHeron (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- These comments appear to be an extension of the same comments started at Jewish religious terrorism. This should have been linked for clarity given the cross-posting of similar points. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose the move to Islamic terrorist attacks, but I would be in favour of a move to Islamic extremist attacks.--Scootertop (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- None of what you write is a reason not to adopt the title Islamic extremist terrorism. Logically, that title means that we’re talking about the extremists who resort to terrorism and have some motivation connected to their version of Islam. NightHeron (talk) 10:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- I am not sure what you mean. There is no contradiction between being religious and extremist. Perhaps you mean terrorism motivated by religious and secular motives (but is there a clear cut distinction in every case?) (t · c) buidhe 06:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support, mainly just because I personally use the latter form more often in speech. I have little to add regarding the nuance between the two, but the neutrality reasoning sounds good to me. However, as the topic is regarding neutrality, how should the obviously very un-neutral use of the word "terrorist" be treated? Certainly, one could argue it is the common use in the western world, but at what point does that outweigh neutrality? Inanimatecarbonrobin (talk) 06:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Inanimatecarbonrobin that's why a few people have suggested List of Islamic extremist attacks alternatively. A suggestion which I'm not opposed to. TarnishedPathtalk 07:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. Doesn't seem like it makes much of a difference. Islamist would seem to fit it better, but I think your suggestion should be added as a redirect. Professor Penguino (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Describing these attacks as Islamic rather than Islamist seems very loaded. PatGallacher (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- @PatGallacher: Did you mean support? Something's mixed up. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- You are right, edited my comments. PatGallacher (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- @PatGallacher: Did you mean support? Something's mixed up. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per PatGallacher. — Amakuru (talk) 00:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Re add "2001 Indian parliament attack"
Here are the sources stating that the perpetrators of the "2001 Indian Parliament attack" belong to Islamic terrorist organizations:
https://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20011217/main1.htm
https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-08/31/content_259902.htm
Not sure how such an old proven addition can be removed citing "no sources provided" when a simple search will lead you to sources.
Editors should also add the "2001 Jammu and Kashmir legislative assembly car bombing"
Source: https://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20011002/main1.htm Cherioc (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Cherioc, sorry I didn't see the words Islamic terrorist or Islamist terrorist once in any of those sources. Justifying entries with those sources would be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. The closest phrasing I found was "Islamic militants" which is not the same thing. TarnishedPathtalk 02:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- "Delhi Police Commissioner Ajay Raj Sharma said the entire operation was carried out by the militant outfit Jaish-e-Mohammad with the help of another militant outfit Lakshar-e-Toiba." Wikipedia itself sources that these organizations are Islamist organizations. These organizations are globally designated Islamist terror orgs. Articles report on news and don't usually mention common knowledge, which Lakshar-e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad Wikipedia pages already mention.
- Anyway, Since you are adamant that both the word "Islamist" and "the attack itself" should be in the same source, here you go:
- https://www.britannica.com/topic/Lashkar-e-Taiba
- "Lashkar-e-Taiba, (Urdu: “Army of the Pure”) also spelled Lashkar-e-Tayyiba or Lashkar-e-Toiba, Islamist militant group, begun in Pakistan in the late 1980s as a militant wing of Markaz-ud-Dawa-wal-Irshad, an Islamist organization influenced by the Wahhābī sect of Sunni Islam."
- "On December 13 that year, Lashkar-e-Taiba undertook a suicide attack on India’s parliament complex in the capital, New Delhi, in conjunction with Jaish-e-Mohammed, another militant group"
- Sources for 2001 Jammu and Kashmir legislative assembly car bombing:
- https://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/south/10/01/india.kashmir/index.html
- https://cisac.fsi.stanford.edu/mappingmilitants/profiles/jaish-e-mohammed
- "Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) is an extremist Islamist group", "In October 2001, the group bombed the legislative assembly building" Cherioc (talk) 09:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- The main problem is that the attackers' motives are unknown, since all the five have been killed during the incident. Consequently, we don't know whether they were motivated by Islamic extremism or, for instance, their act was a part of Kashmiri independence struggle. Enmity towards India, a country with 20% Muslim population and a Muslim president, is per se not an element of radical Islamism as much as it is motivated politically. — kashmīrī TALK 11:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- The words "Islamist" or "Islamic" and "terrorist" need to appear in the same article in relation to the same people accused of the attacks and it needs to be from a credible person making the claim. TarnishedPathtalk 11:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Link to this policy? Drsmoo (talk) 11:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Have a good long read. There are tags at the top of the article about them. TarnishedPathtalk 11:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- You misunderstand WP:SYNTH Drsmoo (talk) 11:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- If you think I'm wrong why don't you raise this at WP:OR/N and test if I'm wrong or you're wrong? TarnishedPathtalk 11:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- You misunderstand WP:SYNTH Drsmoo (talk) 11:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Also WP:RS. TarnishedPathtalk 11:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Have a good long read. There are tags at the top of the article about them. TarnishedPathtalk 11:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Link to this policy? Drsmoo (talk) 11:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
WP:SYNTH editing
@Drsmoo, I've reverted your edit because it was WP:SYNTH. Your first source, Who is Hamas, did not specifically name Operation Al-Aqsa Flood. Your second source, Hamas Leaves Trail of Terror in Israel did not use the word "Islamist" or "Islamic" together with word "terrorism" once. In fact "islam-" or any variation of it was not in the article. You were editing and asking readers to do A + B = C. Please do not edit to re-insert WP:SYNTH as this article already has enough problems with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH that me and other editors have been slowly working to address. TarnishedPathtalk 11:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- So according to you, an ordination described as Islamist by reliable sources, committing an attack described as a terrorist attack by reliable sources, can not be included? Is it your contention that Islamist and terror attack must be in the same sentence? Do you have any other made up rules that are not documented anywhere? Drsmoo (talk) 11:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- I just quoted you the policies above. Have a read. In one of your articles Operation Al-Aqsa Flood wasn't motioned by name. In the other article it wasn't mentioned that terrorists carrying out terrorism attacks were islamic.
- You were taking two articles to synthesise a conclusion Article 1 + Article 2 = conclusion. Neither article by itself could support what you were editing. Please go ready WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Just in case you've missed the title of this article it's called "List of Islamist terrorist attacks". All attacks listed need to be confirmed to be carried out by "Islamic terrorists" or "Islamist terrorists" in each source used. Combining sources to come to that conclusion isn't acceptable per Wikipedia policy. TarnishedPathtalk 11:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Multiple sources describing the event as "Islamist terrorist" would seem to be a prerequisite, else one is combining statements from different sources to make a conclusion not in the individual sources ie synth. Selfstudier (talk) 11:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Just one WP:RS that said the specific attack was carried out by an "Islamist terrorist" or "Islamic terrorist" I'd accept. I think asking for more is a bit much. Combining sources when one can't support an edit is WP:SYNTH. The only reason to include multiple sources is because you are making a few claims or for a few perspectives (when stuff is contentious, not because you need multiple sources to support a single claim. TarnishedPathtalk 11:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Additionally:
- This source, https://abcnews.go.com/amp/International/timeline-surprise-rocket-attack-hamas-israel/story?id=103816006, refers to the militants as Islamist “Israel pounded Hamas targets in Gaza and said the bodies of 1,500 Islamist militants were found in southern towns recaptured by the army in grueling battles near the Palestinian enclave.”
- And as a terrorist attack “At least 14 Americans have been killed in the terrorist attacks” Drsmoo (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- "Islamic terrorist" or "Islamist terrorist" not mentioned once. The closest it gets is "Israeli soldiers remove the body of a compatriot, killed during an attack by the Palestinian militants, in Kfar Aza, south of Israel bordering Gaza Strip, on Oct.10, 2023. Israel pounded Hamas targets in Gaza and said the bodies of 1,500 Islamist militants were found in southern towns recaptured by the army in grueling battles near the Palestinian enclave", so that's obviously talking about IDF operations in Gaza. sorry making any more off that is WP:OR. TarnishedPathtalk 11:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- You are making up new rules as you go now. Drsmoo (talk) 11:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- I've quoted the rules I'm relying on. TarnishedPathtalk 11:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- It sounds like an RFC will be needed if there is no consensus. You are clearly misunderstanding Synth and OR however. Drsmoo (talk) 12:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- You are making up new rules as you go now. Drsmoo (talk) 11:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- "Islamic terrorist" or "Islamist terrorist" not mentioned once. The closest it gets is "Israeli soldiers remove the body of a compatriot, killed during an attack by the Palestinian militants, in Kfar Aza, south of Israel bordering Gaza Strip, on Oct.10, 2023. Israel pounded Hamas targets in Gaza and said the bodies of 1,500 Islamist militants were found in southern towns recaptured by the army in grueling battles near the Palestinian enclave", so that's obviously talking about IDF operations in Gaza. sorry making any more off that is WP:OR. TarnishedPathtalk 11:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Drsmoo: You will have hard time to convince editors here that the struggle for Palestinian independence is motivated by religious extremism. — kashmīrī TALK 11:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Not interested in your opinions, nor in “convincing” anyone. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. If
yourones biases causeyouthem to edit against reliable sourcingyouthey are not fit to edit in this topic. Drsmoo (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)- @Drsmoo your bosses? I suggest you strike that before you find yourself on a noticeboard. TarnishedPathtalk 11:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- It was a typo for biases and already fixed before your edit. Drsmoo (talk) 12:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Drsmoo WP:AGF. I advise you to strike that comment. TarnishedPathtalk 12:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Kashmiri was confused and thoughts Wikipedia was about convincing editors. Wikipedia is about reliable sources. I will change your to one’s to make this more clear. Drsmoo (talk) 12:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Pinging @Tamzin, can I get you attention here please in light of previous warnings. TarnishedPathtalk 12:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Kashmiri was confused and thoughts Wikipedia was about convincing editors. Wikipedia is about reliable sources. I will change your to one’s to make this more clear. Drsmoo (talk) 12:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Drsmoo WP:AGF. I advise you to strike that comment. TarnishedPathtalk 12:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- It was a typo for biases and already fixed before your edit. Drsmoo (talk) 12:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Drsmoo your bosses? I suggest you strike that before you find yourself on a noticeboard. TarnishedPathtalk 11:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Not interested in your opinions, nor in “convincing” anyone. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. If