Talk:Jihad/Archive 8

message: I felt that the article needed to be majorly restructured, mostly to accomodate the concerns that have recently come up regarding the emphasis of the article on Jihad as "holy war." A lot of new information has been added, while at the same time greatly simplifying and reducing the size of the article. The reduction in size has been made possible by creating the new articles defensive Jihad, offensive Jihad, and building on the work started by BrandonYusuf on the rules of war in Islam. I've also removed the NPOV tag because I think all the real controversies have been moved to the spin-off articles (which I think is good, because it allows us to focus on specific topics). If anyone has serious objections to the new structure, please comment below.  --Zeno of Elea 11:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Rewrite 

message: I'm new to this talk page, but just reading some of this stuff makes me sick. The ammount of irrelivant soapboxing, personal correspondance, and personal attacks, and other breaches of WP:NOT are appalling. Someone archive the dead discussions and everyone for Pete's sake, focus on the damn article.--Tznkai 18:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: do go ahead, you just copy-paste stuff to a new subpage, and linkt to it from here. dab (ᛏ) 19:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would, but I'm not sure which discussions are over.--Tznkai 20:18, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think all of the discussions are over and ought to be archived, except for everything including and below SlimVirgin's recent section "Paged Protected," and section #6, Talk:Jihad#Request_for_quantification.2C_moved_from_above_where_it_was_buried where User:Farhansher explained the 5 types of Jihad and the Arabic phrases associated with them.  --Zeno of Elea 02:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for archiving. 

message: It seems to me that having this page link to Robert Spencer's "Jihad Watch" would be a little bit like having the Zionism page link to stormfront.org.
:I'm afraid I can't agree with that. Links both pro and con are acceptable.Ni-ju-Ichi 00:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: the "islamthreat" site is much worse. That's really just hateful polemics ("Or how about using vigilantes from the free world, smuggle them into Mecca and send them against the Aqsa mosque and blow the hell out of these places DURING HAJ!!! Finally one of our politicians saying what should be said". Talk about extremists fantasizing about an eschatological showdown). Jihadwatch at least keeps some dignity and rationality. dab (ᛏ) 08:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Link 

message: can somebody, for pity's sake, run a spellchecker over the article text? This is turning into a sadly hacked together collection of broken English. dab (ᛏ) 08:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll see what I can do later. Sadly, the article attracts many users who are not primarily English speakers by its very nature, especially those who have a highly pro-Islamic POV.Existentializer 15:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't see how attracting a wider community is a bad thing. Secondly, having a POV was never a problem, its the extent that it interferes with article writing that is the problem. Under WP:AGF I am forced to assume that you had a good reason to say what, on face would be a rather wide accusation about other's baises. I invite you to explain or withdraw your statement.--Tznkai 15:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: hell, I've seen the most appalling grammar (or grammer, as they prefer) from native American-English kids. Bad grammar is often a sign of bad content, especially from natives, since these tend to be people here for their pov, not for nicely flowing, balanced and erudite articles. dab (ᛏ) 07:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: this article

message: Plz make your replies on talk:islam
:Previous message left unsigned by Farhansher: there appears to be absolutely no proof to his claims.Ni-ju-Ichi 03:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I wouldn't use the word "attack" but it is disconcerting to look at that forum and see people encouraging people to add the FFI POV to wikipedia.  Also, when they say that they must hide their wikipedia plan I think it's safe to assume that worrying might be a good idea. gren 03:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: as always,  Farhansher's rhetorics are a matter of taste. What he did find, and he could just have posted the links, with better effect, is that the anons adding the ffi link are coordinated via the ffi forum. Wikipedia is vulnerable to that sort of tactic, and therefore "attack" is not necessarily an exaggeration. We are wary of single-topic editors, and editors doing nothing except insisting on a particular external links are not very welcome. dab (ᛏ) 07:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: WP underattack by followers of Sina's Cult of phobia

message: seriously, has anyone even read the article? With the complicated, wide range of meanings, you cannot just have "sites critical of" and "sites supportive of" jihad. what jihad? It turns out that the "sites critical of jihad" are anti-jihadist sites. None of them seems particularly oppose to exalted deeds or perfection of faith per se. As it stands, the links section seems to just take for granted the "jihad == terrorism" simplification the article is taking so much pains to put in perspective. Links on this page should discuss the term jihad itself. Sites that use "jihad" uncritically as a synonym for "Islamist terrorism" should be linked, if at all, from Islamist terrorism. dab (ᛏ) 06:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: if you can find us some sites that are pro or con "spiritual jihad," we can list them. also, i dont think that this particular website equates jihad with terrorism. it seems to be about all sorts of politico-military struggles by Muslims.  --Zeno of Elea 08:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Personally, I think the anti-Jihad sites fall into the category of anti-Islam. I can't see them saying one good thing about Islam, and the sites are run by non-Muslims. If we could find a pro-Jihad site to balance it out, then we're good. Otherwise, I think these "critical sites" should go, people could just turn on a TV or something to see criticism. Mr100percent 08:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "I think these "critical sites" should go, people could just turn on a TV or something to see criticism." yep ... that has nothing  (sic) to do with P.O.V. --Zeno of Elea 10:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: supportive/critical

message: present ToC
#  The diverse Islamic concept of Jihad
#  The exalted deed
#  Jihad as warfare
suggested ToC (1), loosely based on :
#History of the term
#*Jihad as Warfare
#*Jihad as Non-Warfare
#Jihad as Warfare in Modern Times
#Jihad as Non-Warfare in Modern Times
with possible further subsections. It is not possible to discuss the term adequately without a reasonably detailed historical exposition. dab (ᛏ) 13:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops. I didn't see this before I added my comment below, but I agree we need to fix the organization a bit.--Tznkai 17:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ToC

message: Under "similar concepts in other religions" the following to links are listed as "spiritual" : 
Tapas (Sanskrit) | Mortification
How are either of these two concepts similar to Jihad? --Zeno of Elea 08:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also links 

message: I have revised the article. Firstly, the section headings have been made more comprehensable and professional. "Diverse concept of Jihad" has been changed to "Different usages", since the section discusses different usages of the word. "The exalted deed" has been changed to "General theological issues" because they deal with the over-all general concept of Jihad. Also the whole "exalted deed" section has been scaled down and re-written - I have removed all the lengthy quotations from primary sources, and I agree with dab when he said that the (old) "exalted deed" section was "barely readable." I think it is much more concise and readable now, and the sources have been cited (instead of actually pasting the sources into the article). Now, for some reason, Irishpunktom, Heraclius, and an anonymous user are trying to revert back to the older, inferior version of the article, without any explanation.  --Zeno of Elea 16:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised Article 

message: I have requested this page be protected. The history here  shows several series of complex reversions, suggesting a slow moving, but significant edit war.
So could we all please start listing what the disputes are? For my part, I am involved in:
*ActiveDiscuss/TotalDispute flags
*Organization of the entire article
What else is there?--Tznkai 16:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not helping. Are you capable of speaking about specific details, or do you always only talk in generalities? --Zeno of Elea 17:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just a list of editor disputes Zeno, so we can discuss them and get the article unprotected again.--Tznkai 17:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Protection: 

message: Pleas add tr:Cihad and ar:جهاد Marriex 12:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Interwiki

message: It's been protected for weeks and weeks and weeks. There is no ongoing discussion.  Time to edit, I think. --Tony SidawayTalk 09:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotected

message: Here's a reference for the uncited text about the Soviet Muslim declaration of jihad in WWII, which was removed due to lack of citation. The fact might not be appropriate for this overview article but I'm sure an appropriate place can be found for it somewhere. —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about we be fair and also include the Nazi Muslim declaration of Jihad during WWII? --Zeno of Elea 01:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWII jihad 

message: are inappropriate. BrandonYusufToropov 01:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edits (if we can call them that) are inappropriate. -- Zeno of Elea 14:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zeno's edits 

message: This might come as a surprise to editors accustomed to the word being defined solely in the domain of religiousity. However, the term is not limited to its religious definition, it now has an official secular definition and that has been added to the article. --CltFn 04:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The US department of state is not a secular definition and it has no authority to define a belief in Islam. As such that does not make it notable in the article. Maybe we should have the Nazi party define Jewish belief? So please don't insert material you know is inappropriate. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 15:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The US department of state definition is relevant to this article. When are you going to quite trying to force your religious views on the wikipedia articles. This is a secular encyclopedia and all sourced and factually verified material on the topics in question are valid inserts. --CltFn 15:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter if the US definition is sourced, it isn't notable. And similarly you aren't even just including the definition but reverting into a version that actually moves certain sections UP, breaking apart sections and changing several things to POV as if you have some sort of authority in what Islamic belief is. . Can you edit, rather than revert so this doesn't end in a page lock like you did last time? If this is the only section that you want to add then discuss it and add it. Don't get sneaky and put other POV into the article. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 15:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Stay tuned to the Orwell Network, and watch as the US government imposes its official definition of person. BrandonYusufToropov 15:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Section reinserted--CltFn 16:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  US government definition is now part of the article