Talk:Islamic terrorism/Archive 2

message: Big problems on this front in this article. Could other editors comment on the compositional quality of the article as a whole, please? 
I'm thinking of passages like the following, which sound distinctly un-encyclopedic to me. 
* The Saudi regime is perceived as being too closely associated with American foreign policy, particularly through granting permission to the United States to conduct military operations and establish bases on what is viewed as sacred soil. ("Is perceived" -- by whom, specifically, and where is the citation? "Is viewed as" -- ditto. The sentence gives the distinct impression that American military forces are still based in Saudi Arabia. Last time I checked, they had decamped for Qatar.)
* The extent of support for "Islamist terrorism" within the Muslim population is disputed, although it is generally agreed that only the most extremist fringes support it. (Here we have a similarly dubious use of passive voice, which shows up, once again, twice in same sentence. As for "only the most extremist fringes" it is woefully  non-specific)
* The problem is, of course, the term " creating disorder in the land " for which the Islamist terrorist see their enemies as those creating disorder in the land of Islam. (Does this sentence parse? Does "of course" even belong in an encyclopedia? Does the reader have any idea which specific "terrorists" we are referring to, and, for that matter, how we are able to read their minds? Note, too, the embarrassing singular/plural disagreement: "the Islamist terrorist see their enemies...". This passage could have been lifted -- and for all I know, was lifted -- from someone's 3:00 am draft of a term paper.)
It's hard to imagine any of the above showing up in, say, the Columbia Encyclopedia.
Now, before somebody asks me to get to work on improving the deformed sentences above, let me share my firm conviction that the very best way to repair them and their brethren is to delete them in their entirety. 
Failing that, perhaps some other editors could discuss the best remedy for the vast chunks of this article that are written at this level? Perhaps a notice up front warning readers of the generally terrible quality of the prose that follows, and appealing for their help? BrandonYusufToropov 13:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality of writing 

message: I think Ohanian's edits were not exactly proper.... you cannot say 'The phrase "or for creating disorder in the land" has been misused by the Islamist terrorists' because, well... who is to say they are misusing it.  Terrorists are Muslim, even if their mindset is not followed by all Muslims and you cannot be saying that their viewpoint isn't Islamic.  So, it isn't misuse, it's just a different and more intolerant use.  Not to mention that the Qur'an quote analysis on most of the stuff here is original research.
Also, getting into the habit of interpretting subjects by single Qur'an quotes is not how Islamic jurisprudence works (and is why we need to cite more scholarly sources and not just Qur'an).  Fiqahs have to know a great deal about thOct e Qu'ran and hadith as a whole before they can rule because of the intricacies so that they can know the whole story.  So, we should make that clear instead of focussing solely on quotes. gren グレン 12:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed "misused" to "used". --Lee Hunter 13:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ohanian's edits and more! 

message: The last anon also vandalized a user page besides revert warring here. He is using the Tor proxy program. Any IP that continues in this revert war should be indefinitely blocked as it's an open proxy. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-3 22:10
Nonsense, as shown to you in IRC. 129.7.35.213 22:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tor vandals

message: I don't understand why the part regarding Australian Imams keeps getting removed. It is properly sourced.
:Welcome back. Who are those Imams? --  Wiki me up™
::Anon IP Blocked again for evading ban. Replying to these guys not necessary, svest :). --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 02:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: lol! Well, it seems very hard for me to know exactly about their schedule! Svest 02:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why?

message: I properly formatted all but one of the dates in this section.  (It took a bit of detective work, half of them were in US date format, the rest in European date format).  I can't determine whether "7/5/02 - Bombing in al-Arbaa, Algeria. 49 dead, 117 injured" took places on 5 July or 7 May.  Any help is appreciated. Peyna 00:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates in Examples of Islamist Terrorist section 

message: MSK, please note that Islamic and Islamist mean different things. The distinction is quite useful to be made in the beginning of this article, in my opinion. And Tenth Crusade is directly relevant to this kind of terrorism, so I don't see why it shouldn't be there. - ulayiti (talk) 12:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the actual sentence, it doesn't make sense at all: This article's already called Islamist terrorism, not Islamic terrorism, definitely no need to have the title name twice repeated. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 12:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Islamic Terrorism redirects here. It's probably worth mentioning in the intro to avoid confusing readers. Tom Harrison Talk 12:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ah, now that's what I didn't know. ok. I already did that now. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 12:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  The sentence says,  'The term Islamic terrorism is used more commonly, especially in Western media, but some believe it to be a smear against Islam.'  This is not repeating the article title, it's making a distinction between the correct usage 'Islamist terrorism' and the incorrect (but common) 'Islamic terrorism'. This is extremely useful to have in the article. Why do you think it doesn't make sense? - ulayiti (talk) 12:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  um sorry. I actually just looked at the old edit again and I see it does say Islamic terrorism in the second bit and not Islamist again.. I misread it somehow I dunno. I could've sworn it said "islamist terrorism... the term islamist terrorism is used more commonly.."etc --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 20:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Islamic terrorism' and [[Tenth Crusade]] 

message: The Saudis themselves are declaring a war between Islam and the West.
Iran is screaming "Death to America Death to Israel." 
And an [abusive comment] sympathizer admin has locked this article down because people were telling the truth about Islam on it.
What a [expletive] joke this so-called "encyclopedia" is.
::Even better, they let [abusive comment] like LeeHunter have free hand to mess with the comments of others. What else is new, all he does is POV war to try to claim Islam is peaceful and everyone should convert to the [expletive] death cult of mohammed.
:With respect to Swollib, who deleted this earlier as a revert, it does seem somewhat relevant to the current state of the page. Queeran
:I think you may have misread that Foxnews article. Here is the relevant excerpt:
:Sheik Abdul-Aziz al-Sheik, the kingdom's grand mufti, said Muslims faced critical challenges, among them accusations of terrorism and human rights abuses and calls for revisions in their school textbooks. "Oh, Muslim nation, there is a war against our creed, against our culture under the pretext of fighting terrorism. We should stand firm and united in protecting our religion," he said, speaking at a mosque on the plain of Mount Arafat.
:Seems to me that he is not "declaring a war" as you put it, but making a claim that his religion is under attack under the pretext of fighting terrorism. That's not exactly an unreasonable assertion given recent remarks by William G. Boykin who came across more like an Iranian mullah than a US general.  --Lee Hunter 12:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In Islamic parlance, "they declared war on us" is the usual excuse to declare Jihad. Osama bin Laden doesn't claim to have started his little war, he claims the West attacked "Islam" and uses that as justification. The same way for Palestinian thugs claiming to be holy warriors, and for POV warriors who run around on Wikipedia trying to hide the truth of Islam's hateful ideology.
Wikipedia isn't a forum, please stop arguing unless you plan to edit.--Urthogie 13:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

message: I want to apologize in advance if any of my edit summaries pissed people off by saying their edits were POV.  Wasn't constructive, and you'll expect me to refrain from it.  Peace, --Urthogie 15:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apology for edit summaries