→Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks?: Reply Tag: Reply |
→Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks?: Reply Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply |
||
Line 328: | Line 328: | ||
*#::::Im asking Iskandar323 to clarify what he meant. [[User:Drsmoo|Drsmoo]] ([[User talk:Drsmoo|talk]]) 12:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC) |
*#::::Im asking Iskandar323 to clarify what he meant. [[User:Drsmoo|Drsmoo]] ([[User talk:Drsmoo|talk]]) 12:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC) |
||
*#:::::What Iskander wrote is obviously in reference to a previous comment by Francois Robere ({{tq|which Hamas (falsely) claimed was being desecrated by Israel|q=yes}}). The {{tq|falsely|q=yes}} (added to "claimed") on the other hand is clearly Robere's opinion. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 12:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC) |
*#:::::What Iskander wrote is obviously in reference to a previous comment by Francois Robere ({{tq|which Hamas (falsely) claimed was being desecrated by Israel|q=yes}}). The {{tq|falsely|q=yes}} (added to "claimed") on the other hand is clearly Robere's opinion. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 12:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC) |
||
*#::::::That would be a fact, not an opinion. People may disagree, but if they believe Jews are desecrating the Temple Mount they are both bigoted and wrong. [[User:Drsmoo|Drsmoo]] ([[User talk:Drsmoo|talk]]) 12:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*#:::Try stay on topic, Drsmoo. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 12:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC) |
*#:::Try stay on topic, Drsmoo. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 12:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 12:27, 17 October 2023
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Requested move 2 September 2023
- 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: The consensus is mixed, with some users in favour of changing "Islamist" to "Islamic," others proposing the addition of "extremist," and some opposing the change. The key points of contention include the precision of terminology and whether "Islamic" or "Islamist" better describes the content and intent of the list. While there is no clear-cut consensus, it is evident that there is a desire for neutrality and precision in the terminology used. The consensus is far from unanimous. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
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 “Islamist” implies acts from groups claiming to act under the influence and direction of their interpretation of Islam. “Islamic” merely describes their religious orientation.Mistamystery (talk) 16:34, 14 October 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)
- "is per se not an element of radical Islamism as much as it is motivated politically." Nice goal post shift yet wrong.
- It was narrated that Thawban, the freed slave of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), said: "The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: 'There are two groups of my Ummah whom Allah will free from the Fire: The group that invades India (تَغْزُو الْهِنْدَ, taghzoo al-hind), and the group that will be with 'Isa bin Maryam, peace be upon him.' Sunan an-Nasa'i 1:25:3177 (hasan) from The Book of Jihad.
- It was narrated that Abu Hurairah said: "The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) promised us that we would invade India (غَزْوَةَ الْهِنْدِ, ghazwa al-hind). If I live to see that, I will sacrifice myself and my wealth. If I am killed, I will be one of the best of the martyrs, and if I come back, I will be Abu Hurairah Al-Muharrar." Al-Muharrar: The one freed (from the Fire). Sunan an-Nasa'i 1:25:3175 Cherioc (talk) 14:15, 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)
- https://www.history.com/topics/21st-century/9-11-attacks
- This is the only source listed for 9/11 attacks. No where do we see a credible person making the claim that the terrorists were Islamist. Kindly remove the 9/11 attacks from the list. Cherioc (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- "Jaish-e-Mohammad (The Army of Muhammad)" and "Lashkar-e-Toiba" (UN designated Islamist terrorist organizations): We take responsibility for the attack on Indian parliament.
- Wikipedia mods TarnishedPath & kashmīrī : No you didn't do it and you are not Islamist. Cherioc (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Link to this policy? Drsmoo (talk) 11:08, 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)
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)
- I’m confused what you’re upset about tarnished path. There was no personal attack. Drsmoo (talk) 12:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Upset? More personal attacks? TarnishedPathtalk 12:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, I’ll rephrase… what do you object to in my post? I will rephrase to make it unobjectionable. Drsmoo (talk) 13:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- This isn't Twitter of Facebook. I suggest you revaluate your communication very fast. TarnishedPathtalk 13:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, I’ll rephrase… what do you object to in my post? I will rephrase to make it unobjectionable. Drsmoo (talk) 13:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Upset? More personal attacks? TarnishedPathtalk 12:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, currently on leave from adminship. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- I’m confused what you’re upset about tarnished path. There was no personal attack. Drsmoo (talk) 12:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Drsmoo: Let me remind you that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a summary of daily press clippings. Marginal and fringe views are not normally included, even if an editor manages to finds them printed somewhere in mainstream media (which, mind you, rarely have NPOV policies as we do). Read Wikipedia:UNDUE. — kashmīrī TALK 14:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is solely based on reliable sources Drsmoo (talk) 14:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Just jumping in here. New to this article. There is a clear delineation between Islamist and non-Islamist militant groups in Palestine. Always has been. I’m not sure what the debate is.
- I would imagine the larger issue (given recent discourse) is the use of the word “terrorist” , but I don’t see that topic active here (yet) Mistamystery (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Mistamystery, for an attack to be included in this list per Wikipedia policies (WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH) the sources used need to mention that the person/s or group which were associated with the attack were "Islamic terrorist/s" or "Islamist terrorist/s" and they need to do it explicitly within one source. Wikipedia policy forbids taking a synthesise of sources and combining them in a logical fashion to derive a conclusion, even if it is extremely evident and everyone knows in their bones that organisation x is a terrorist organisation because everyone law enforcement agency on the planet has listed them as such. Does that make sense? TarnishedPathtalk 01:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- Some sources:
- https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/world-reacts-surprise-attack-by-hamas-israel-2023-10-07/ - “The Palestinian Islamist group Hamas launched the biggest attack on Israel in years on Saturday.”
- https://amp.dw.com/en/hamas-attacks-on-israel-triggers-debate-in-germany/a-67047140 - “In the wake of the terrorist attack by Islamist militant Hamas on Israeli soldiers and civilians, Muslim associations in Germany have come under pressure to position themselves clearly.”
- https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/67038989.amp - “Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said the country is "at war" after an attack by Islamist group Hamas.”
- https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2023/10/14/faced-with-hamas-s-attack-on-israel-europe-s-left-is-divided_6171706_4.html - “Since Saturday, October 7, the left in several European countries has reacted in disarray to Hamas' attack on Israel. While some unreservedly condemned the Islamist group's offensive and the massacres committed by its fighters, others have pointed to the responsibility of the Jewish state. “ Drsmoo (talk) 03:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- None of the articles you've linked there specifically name which the attack (Operation Al-Aqsa Flood) and the BBC one doesn't use the word "terrorist" at all. You wouldn't be able to justify the entry that you used before which was "Islamist militants of Hamas launched a large scale coordinated massacre against Israeli civilians they called Operation Al-Aqsa Flood." with any of those. You'd be able to justify something else but I'd suggest you bring it here to obtain consensus. TarnishedPathtalk 03:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- Do you have any alternate suggestions? Drsmoo (talk) 03:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- We can avoid synth by using multiple sentences. One sentence for terrorist attack by Islamist militants, and another for massacre of civilians, each independently cited. Drsmoo (talk) 04:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- Please try and remember the name of this article "List of Islamist terrorist attacks" not "List of Islamist militant attacks". TarnishedPathtalk 04:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- If is described as a terrorist attack by an Islamist group in the DW article. At this point it’s not clear what your objection is, but I think an RFC will be needed.Drsmoo (talk) 07:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- I think you're reading meaning into my words that I don't mean to be there. I made my previous comment because you use the word militant a lot, which for our purposes is irrelevant. If a source says something is a terrorist attack, fine we can look at them and see what else they say. TarnishedPathtalk 09:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- If is described as a terrorist attack by an Islamist group in the DW article. At this point it’s not clear what your objection is, but I think an RFC will be needed.Drsmoo (talk) 07:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- Please try and remember the name of this article "List of Islamist terrorist attacks" not "List of Islamist militant attacks". TarnishedPathtalk 04:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- We can avoid synth by using multiple sentences. One sentence for terrorist attack by Islamist militants, and another for massacre of civilians, each independently cited. Drsmoo (talk) 04:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- Do you have any alternate suggestions? Drsmoo (talk) 03:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- None of the articles you've linked there specifically name which the attack (Operation Al-Aqsa Flood) and the BBC one doesn't use the word "terrorist" at all. You wouldn't be able to justify the entry that you used before which was "Islamist militants of Hamas launched a large scale coordinated massacre against Israeli civilians they called Operation Al-Aqsa Flood." with any of those. You'd be able to justify something else but I'd suggest you bring it here to obtain consensus. TarnishedPathtalk 03:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, makes total sense. Main emerging issues here are:
- 1. There seems to be a major shift around the usage of the word “terrorist” and “terrorism” in general - with a re-focusing on militancy, asymmetrical warfare, and focus on civilian targeting. This new debate should find its place on the terrorism parent article, and won’t be surprised if it finds itself here as well.
- 2. The article seems to ignore Islamic militant groups in Palestine, which I’m confused about, given that there is a very clear delineation as to which groups are Islamist and which aren’t (i.e. PFLP). Unless there is un-balanced blocking of inclusion of those groups and their attacks, they should find themselves on the list (which seems to be blocked at the moment?)
- Mistamystery (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Mistamystery, for an attack to be included in this list per Wikipedia policies (WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH) the sources used need to mention that the person/s or group which were associated with the attack were "Islamic terrorist/s" or "Islamist terrorist/s" and they need to do it explicitly within one source. Wikipedia policy forbids taking a synthesise of sources and combining them in a logical fashion to derive a conclusion, even if it is extremely evident and everyone knows in their bones that organisation x is a terrorist organisation because everyone law enforcement agency on the planet has listed them as such. Does that make sense? TarnishedPathtalk 01:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is solely based on reliable sources Drsmoo (talk) 14:37, 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
Remove 9/11 attacks from the list
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
https://www.history.com/topics/21st-century/9-11-attacks
This is the only source listed for 9/11 attacks. No where do we see a credible person making the claim that the terrorists were Islamist. Kindly remove the 9/11 attacks from the list. (Refer to 'Re add 2001 Parliament attack' for context)
The main problem is that the attackers' motives are unknown, since all the hijackers have died. Consequently, we don't know whether they were motivated by Islamic extremism as they all died. Cherioc (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- The 9/11 attacks have been claimed by Al Kaida, and we are fairly certain of its aims and motivation, as well as those of its leadership. — kashmīrī TALK 15:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2023
Add: Israel- Hamas terrorist attack. 1300 + massacred on October 07th 2023 2A02:C7C:DAF9:8700:F871:7663:5444:A7A (talk) 23:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 00:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks?
Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas be included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks? Drsmoo (talk) 07:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Do you have any WP:RS that specifically mention Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by name in the article and also state that the attack was carried out by Hamas and also state that Hamas is a Islamic terrorist or Islamist terrorist organisation? TarnishedPathtalk 08:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: That really depends on how the WP:RS have been labelling it. I think the question here is whether or not the operation has been described as a terrorist attack. From what I have seen, this operation has more often than not been described as an attack in the conventional sense of armed conflict; however, that's anecdotal, and I haven't examined the sources in the article. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 10:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- Some sources:
- https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/world-reacts-surprise-attack-by-hamas-israel-2023-10-07/ - “The Palestinian Islamist group Hamas launched the biggest attack on Israel in years on Saturday.”
- https://amp.dw.com/en/hamas-attacks-on-israel-triggers-debate-in-germany/a-67047140 - “In the wake of the terrorist attack by Islamist militant Hamas on Israeli soldiers and civilians, Muslim associations in Germany have come under pressure to position themselves clearly.”
- https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/67038989.amp - “Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said the country is "at war" after an attack by Islamist group Hamas.”
- https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2023/10/14/faced-with-hamas-s-attack-on-israel-europe-s-left-is-divided_6171706_4.html - “Since Saturday, October 7, the left in several European countries has reacted in disarray to Hamas' attack on Israel. While some unreservedly condemned the Islamist group's offensive and the massacres committed by its fighters, others have pointed to the responsibility of the Jewish state.”
- Drsmoo (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- Not one of those sources has the words "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" in them. How can you use them to establish that any particularly organisation launched an attack called "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood"? Also the BBC article doesn't have the word "terrorist" in it either. TarnishedPathtalk 14:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- Some sources:
- Yes (summoned by bot). The DW article cited above seems unequivocal in calling it a terror attack by an Islamist group, so it seems to meet the list criteria. That Hamas’s name for the attack doesn’t appear in that DW article doesn’t disqualify the event from being within the list’s scope. We don’t have to call the list entry “Operation Al-Aqsa Flood”. Most list entries don’t get “official” names. Equally, if we do want to give the event that name, it’s not SYNTH to cite that attribute to another source that is clearly talking about the same event. I’m not sure this needed an RfC - seems more of a WP:3O situation. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- OPPOSE None of the sources provided is sufficient for the specific text proposed to be inserted without introducing further WP:OR into this article. Me and other editors have worked for an extended period of time to address WP:OR in this article without having further issues introduced. TarnishedPathtalk 22:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. The Reuters and DW sources provided by Drsmoo show that this is generally considered an Islamist terrorist attack. More sources that identify it as such would be good, but these two are sufficient for verification. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Further to my opposition vote above, there is not consensus in WP:RS about the attacks being terrorist attacks:
The Conversation calls it an "operation" repeatedly.
South China Morning Post calls it an "assault" throughout their article.
Al Jazeera calls it an operation in the title of their article titled "There is nothing surprising about Hamas’s operation" and cynically puts the words "“unprovoked” and “terrorist” in quotation marks, making sure to impart that these are the words of "diplomats and political leaders from the West". Terrorist is never used in the article voice.
The Guardian's title is "Israel-Hamas war escalates – in pictures".
The BBC This is the source provided by Drsmoo, not once is the word terrorist or terrorism used and the title is "Israel: "We are at war" says PM following Hamas rocket attacks". Throughout the article the operation is referred to as attack/s.
NBC News The word attack is used through the article and the only time "terrorists" is used is when quoting Joe Biden. Terrorists is never used in the article voice.
The Guardian called it an offensive. The word "terrorists" is only used once when quoting some random. Terrorists is never used in the article voice.
We should not be adding in this operation when WP:RS disagree. TarnishedPathtalk 08:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed, a number of sources calls this "an operation". Yes, sure, that was a terrorist operation. Should the Hamas militants be described as a "military force"? Yes, possibly. But the military forces, and especially special forces, can be easily involved in terrorism, which is defined as an action to incite fear to civilian population. My very best wishes (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Not one of the sources I provided categorised the operation in such manner. TarnishedPathtalk 23:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- The Guardian,[2][3] The Conversation[4][5] and NBC News[6][7][8] all use the term "terrorism" in some of their later coverage (cf. WP:RSBREAKING: "it is better to wait a day or two", etc.).
- A quick search suggests that Reuters, the source of the SCMP piece that you cite, is one of the outlets that avoids on principle using the term "terrorism" in its own voice (like BBC). BilledMammal has correctly suggested that
[if] it is their policy to not name any event a terrorist attack... [then] their failure to do so here is not indicative [of whether it is or isn't one]
.[9] - As for Al Jazeera - it is owned by the Qatary state, which is one of the main benefactors of Hamas and the people of Gaza.[10] Given the questions that have been raised about AJ's editorial independence (you can see in the lead), I don't think we should rely on it for this.
- Regarding conflicting sources, see WP:WEIGHT. François Robere (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Refer to WP:RS/P for the single source of truth as fair as consensus goes. If you don't like it then raise RfCs at WP:RSN to contest what consensus has previously determined. TarnishedPathtalk 02:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Your argument about WP:WEIGHT doesn't hold unless you can show where there has been consensus drawn as demonstrated at WP:RS/P which says your preferred sources are better than others preferred sources. That is that other people's preferred sources have additional considerations and aren't green. TarnishedPathtalk 11:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Not one of the sources I provided categorised the operation in such manner. TarnishedPathtalk 23:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed, a number of sources calls this "an operation". Yes, sure, that was a terrorist operation. Should the Hamas militants be described as a "military force"? Yes, possibly. But the military forces, and especially special forces, can be easily involved in terrorism, which is defined as an action to incite fear to civilian population. My very best wishes (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- No: It was clearly a military operation of significant scope - unprecedented scope, in fact, hence it's wide-ranging impacts. That some of these impacts could individually be characterized as terroristic does not make the operation as a whole terroristic in nature. This is WP:COMMONSENSE. The sourcing is also not there. Moreover, the list isn't just about terrorist attacks, but Islamist ones, and this attack involved groups unified by Palestinian nationalism. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment This RFC asking whether it should be included in the List of major terrorist incidents seems relevant as it covers much of the same ground (some of the same editors involved) Selfstudier (talk) 11:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- No this was a military operation. M.Bitton (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, that was the most important Islamist terrorist attack since 911, and it was described as such by vast majority of sources.
RS quotes
|
---|
|
- the attack has been equated with the September 11 attacks,[11][12][13] and the sheer number of victims makes it the biggest such attack anywhere in the world since 2014 or 2015.
- The sources are unanimous in stating that Hamas is: a violent, militant organization that has taken control of the Gaza Strip by force from the internationally recognized Palestinian Authority.[14][15][16][17][18][19]
- It was also a raid, rather than invasion, in terms of military tactics, but the purpose of the raid was to terrorize the civilian population, by attacking specifically the civilian population. Yes, we now have a war, but this war was started by the major terrorist attack (Operation Al-Aqsa Flood under discussion) conducted by Hamas and other terrorist forces.
- This seems to be a duplicate RfC - see here. My very best wishes (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- No: Firstly, numerous reliable sources have refused to describe "Operation al-Aqsa Storm" as a "terrorist" attack. This line of propagandistic talking point is coming only from the Israeli state and pro-Israel news-outlets in the West. Arab League countries, Latin American countries, African countries, China, Russia, Brazil, etc. have refused to label the operation as a "terrorist" attack.
- Secondly, deadly military campaigns that pursued genocidal, extermination policies and perpetrated some of the worst terrorist acts, and massacres, like Nazi Germany's Operation Barbarossa havent been listed in wikipedia as "terrorist incidents".
- Thirdly, labelling "Operation al-Aqsa Flood" as "terrorism" contradicts basic facts and would be original research. This operation is a major military campaign which is ongoing and it was launched through air, land and sea.[1] The soldiers who participated in this operation also captured new territories and held them for a few days. This is WARFARE.
- Fourthly, multiple Palestinian paramilitary groups have joined forces with Hamas in this operation. These include left-wing and nationalist militant groups.
Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- You cite NBC in arguing that calling this a "terrorist attack" would be OR, but NBC's own coverage does that.[2][3][4] François Robere (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- None of those articles you linked labelled the whole operation as a "terrorist attack". That's your original research.
- "Land, air and sea: Video analysis shows how Hamas coordinated huge Israel attack" (BBC News, October 2023) Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 04:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- You cite NBC in arguing that calling this a "terrorist attack" would be OR, but NBC's own coverage does that.[2][3][4] François Robere (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, of course. This is obviously a terrorist attack, as I've explained in this RfC discussion (parts of which have been quoted above by MVBW). As for whether the attack was motivated by an Islamist interpretation of Islam, I defer you to our own article, to scholarly sources (Knudsen, 2005; Hroub, 2006; Milton-Edwards & Farrell, 2010, and others), and to virtually every major media outlet that reported on it. François Robere (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
an Islamist interpretation of Islam
I never heard of such a thing. what is it? M.Bitton (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)- See Islamism. François Robere (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- I know what Islamism is, but what I want to know is the relation between Islamism and the right of self-defence (this is what the attack is all about). M.Bitton (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Sources? François Robere (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- I know what Islamism is, but what I want to know is the relation between Islamism and the right of self-defence (this is what the attack is all about). M.Bitton (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- See Islamism. François Robere (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- @François Robere, this list is about "Islamist terrorist attacks". If something can't be categorised as an "Islamist terrorist attacks" it doesn't belong in this list and any attempts to insert it in this list are WP:OR. TarnishedPathtalk 23:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- No WAPO:How Hamas’s carefully planned Israel attack devolved into a chaotic rampage cites Meir Ben Shabbat, a former Israeli national security adviser, "Those who attacked Israel are not terrorist squads, but a commando brigade belonging to a large army, numbering in the tens of thousands, built over time with funds intended for humanitarian causes,” said Meir Ben Shabbat, a former Israeli national security adviser, adding that some of the militants carried “data files on the territories and settlements they raided." seems to confirm primarily a military operation. I repeat what I have said previously, if one asks whether the music festival should be in the list, I can agree, but not with a well planned op that killed a lot of soldiers and captured others, among other things.Selfstudier (talk) 22:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Selfstudier:, I think the quote was inadvertently taken out of context. The way I read it is as Ben Shabbat saying is that the attackers were much better prepared than your "average" terrorist squad; elsewhere, he compared the attack to 9/11 and identified the perpetrators as "Hamas terrorists".[20] François Robere (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Regardless of what Ben Shabbat writes, it's an opinion piece, so not an WP:RS. TarnishedPathtalk 23:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- In the one you've quoted. TarnishedPathtalk 23:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Besides which with talk like "The political echelon should instruct the IDF to immediately create a 300-meter wide security zone on the Gazan side running the length of the border and declare that any Palestinian that enters this zone is placing his life at risk." he really paints himself as an
WP:FRINGEextremist. TarnishedPathtalk 23:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)- I have no doubts about his sympathies, still he should qualify as some sort of an expert in these matters and "Those who attacked Israel are not terrorist squads, but a commando brigade belonging to a large army.." seems clear enough to me. Selfstudier (talk) 08:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Those comments were in regards to the article François provided as it is an opinion piece by Shabbat. The article you quoted is different as it a news article in The Washington Post and only quotes Shabbat as an expert. Your quote is good. The opinion piece provided by François is not when it comes to matters of fact, for obvious reasons such as WP:RSEDITORIAL. TarnishedPathtalk 09:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- I have no doubts about his sympathies, still he should qualify as some sort of an expert in these matters and "Those who attacked Israel are not terrorist squads, but a commando brigade belonging to a large army.." seems clear enough to me. Selfstudier (talk) 08:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Selfstudier:, I think the quote was inadvertently taken out of context. The way I read it is as Ben Shabbat saying is that the attackers were much better prepared than your "average" terrorist squad; elsewhere, he compared the attack to 9/11 and identified the perpetrators as "Hamas terrorists".[20] François Robere (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- NO. The attack was certainly not driven by Islamism but by political and military considerations. The civilian victims were collateral damage, in American speak; of the same type as the victims of the Sabra and Shatila massacre, the Kunduz hospital airstrike, or the reciprocal Israeli attack on Gaza, none of which is called a terrorist act by Wikipedia. — kashmīrī TALK 23:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- No I don't think that "terrorist attack" is a sufficient way to conceptualize what happened. And while the Palestinians do happen to be mostly Muslims, there's no evidence that this attack was motivated by Islamism. The attack was for political reasons, not religious reasons. Philomathes2357 (talk) 04:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Philomathes2357: this is about the nature of a specific organization, not of the Palestinians in general. "Hamas" (حماس) is the Arabic acronym for Islamic Resistance Movement (حركة المقاومة الإسلامية). It was created as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, and one of its initial goals - later codified in its charter - was the complete destruction of Israel. It is widely seen as a violent Islamist organization[21][22][23][24][25][26] responsible for dozens of terrorist attacks, which is why it is designated a "terrorist organization" by US, EU, Canada, Australia, Japan, and others.
- "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" was named in reference to Al-Aqsa Mosque, which Hamas (falsely) claimed was being desecrated by Israel.[27][28] In a speech given on the day of the attack, Ismail Haniyeh himself said that "the time has come to finish the battle for Al Aqsa".[29] Whatever else Hamas had intended to achieve in this attack, it is clearly underpinned by an Islamist interpretation of Islam.
- @Kashmiri: With respect to target selection, civilians were not "collateral damage" but one of the main targets. Kydd & Walter (2006) define "terrorism" as "the use of violence against civilians by nonstate actors to attain political goals" (incidentally, they mention Hamas in the same sentence as Al-Qaeda and the Tamil Tigers). Here we have a non-state actor that intentionally attacks 23 targets that are purely civilian, and only five that are purely military;[30] that instructs its "fighters", sent to rural farming communities, to "kill as many people as possible";[31][32] that has special code words for events like "killing all hostages", "using human shields", and "setting houses on fire";[33] that massacres at close range hundreds of unarmed party goers,[34][35] entire families,[36] and even pets;[37] that takes hostage mothers with their babies,[38] hiding youth[39] and disabled elderly;[40] and that - to add insult to murder - then posts a record of all this to social media.[41][42][43][44] And then of course, there's the >3,000 rockets (Hamas claims >5,000) launched indiscriminately at towns and cities in Israel's heartland, including Tel Aviv and Rishon LeZion, and now - ironically - at Jerusalem.[45][46][47][48]
- So this ticks all the boxes for "terrorism" in general and "Islamist terrorism" in particular, which is why it was termed as such by at least 15-20 media outlets (see above) and over 40 governments,[49] as well as transnational organization like the EU,[50][51] UN[52][53][54][55] and NATO.[56] If WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT are of any importance around here, then it's pretty clear what we should do. François Robere (talk) 10:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- @François Robere, I remind you of MOS:TERRORIST and WP:NOTFORUM. This really isn't the place for these sorts of rants and some of your accusations are highly contentious and inflammatory. TarnishedPathtalk 11:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, so only a minority of countries have designated Hamas as a terrorist organization, and many also view it as a resistance organisation; Al-Aqsa, FYI, is also a Palestinian nationalist symbol to the Palestinian people as much as it a religious one, though yes, just two days prior, it was stormed once again by Israeli settlers - hence the desecration angle; massacres also happens in wars, this is a war and the operation was an military operation in a war; and so finally, no, it does not tick the boxes, any of them. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Iskandar323, The Temple Mount is the holiest site in Judaism.
Referring to Jews visiting as “desecration” is profoundly disturbing language that has no place on Wikipedia.When you write “desecration” are you giving your own views, or just stating Hamas’ views? Drsmoo (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)- @Drsmoo, please don't WP:STRAWMAN other editors. TarnishedPathtalk 11:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Drsmoo, thank you for striking your comment, but do you really feel it was appropriate to try and entrap another editor with the gotya question you added on when you struck your comment? TarnishedPathtalk 12:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Im asking Iskandar323 to clarify what he meant. Drsmoo (talk) 12:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Try stay on topic, Drsmoo. Selfstudier (talk) 12:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Iskandar323, The Temple Mount is the holiest site in Judaism.
References
- ^ "'We are in a war,' Netanyahu says after Hamas launches surprise attack". NBC News. 7 October 2023.
- ^ Salam, Yasmine (2023-10-10). "Hamas group explained: Here's what to know about the group behind the deadly attack in Israel". NBC News. Retrieved 2023-10-16.
- ^ Schecter, Anna (2023-10-13). "'Top secret' Hamas documents show that terrorists intentionally targeted elementary schools and a youth center". NBC News. Retrieved 2023-10-16.
- ^ "New details on Hamas' surprise terror attack revealed". NBC News. Retrieved 2023-10-16.