Talk:Islamic terrorism/Archive 4

message: There's some related discussion at Talk:Christian terrorism#Link to Islamist terrorism. Input would be welcome. Tom Harrison Talk 22:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to [[Christian terrorism]] 

message: To get the point across of what this stuff really results in, pictures would be emotionally powerful as well as factually backup the results of terrorist attacks.--Urthogie 09:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  article could do with some pictures 

message: Generally you want to choose a search methodology before you see the results, rather than using the results to judge the methodology. Language Log writes a lot about using Google for linguistic research. These are some of the articles, if anyone is interested: , , . Tnagential to the topic, but someone may find it useful. Tom Harrison Talk 20:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google research 

message: Without singling anyone out, I wanted to draw everyone's attention to a couple of points. Among other things, WP:NPA says, "Abusive edit summaries are particularly ill-regarded." From Wikipedia:Edit summary, "Edit summaries should accurately and succinctly summarize the nature of the edit, especially if it could be controversial," and "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved." Certainly I've sometimes been guilty of that myself. On a page like this where each of us feels strongly about his position, it's especially important to be careful what we say to each other. Thanks, Tom Harrison Talk 02:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A good point. Mea culpa. I'd also like to add, however, that this article has become a magnet for people who want to feed, in subtle and not-so-subtle  ways, the anti-Muslim hysteria in the West. This makes it a very frustrating page to work on. The thing that really lights my fuse is when people insist on adding stuff that is highly suspect and then provide links to sources which clearly don't support what they've written. One of a number of recent examples: someone wrote that surveys of Muslims around the world show wide support for Osama bin Laden. The accompanying link was to an article about how Muslims in Nigeria like Bin Laden more than they do Bush (no polls or surveys were mentioned in the article). Aside from being patently dishonest, it is disrespectful to the reader and to other editors who would normally assume that if a link is provided it is  to a legitimate source. --Lee Hunter 11:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.--Urthogie 11:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that remark consistent with WP:NPA ;) ? Palmiro | Talk 11:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It might be interesting to track the incidence of Osama as a given name, and compare the situation before and after 9/11. In horror at bin Laden's depravity, devout parents probably stopped giving their sons what had formerly been a popular name. That would be indicative of widespread opposition to terrorism. But maybe that would be original research. Tom Harrison Talk 16:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is anecdotal, but I believe Osama become the most popular newly given name in Pakistan after 9/11. Marskell 18:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text:   Marskell 18:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh; well, probably my methodology is flawed. Tom Harrison Talk 20:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think so. Your sentiment was right and you didn't have a methodology as such, just making a suggestion... I'm not, and I hope in general other editors are not, glossing in favour of stuff which proves support or opposition at the exclusion of other material. If X data, comment, news release, etc. says X, we should say X. (To be POV for a minute): Bin Laden has an enormous following in the Muslim world (he wouldn't survive if he didn't) and the opposition to his behaviour is also so complete and visceral amongst Muslims that George Bush and comments on "evil" seem tame. It is 1.2 billion fucking people we're talking about... Sorry if I seem over-the-top, it's just the reductionism gets to me sometimes. And Happy Muslim New Year BTW, Marskell 22:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civility 

message: I was thinking of amalgamating those two sections myself, but you did it.  Thanks!--Urthogie 15:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Flowers for everyone. I think we can also combine the intro to Ideology and theocracy and Islamist ideology. We also need to sharpen def's in this area--"Islamist scholars," for instance. Scholars as terrorist or scholars as Western academic? The former don't consider themselves "Islamist" methinks. Marskell 15:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, great idea combining support/opposition into "attitudes toward"; I wish I'd thought of it. Tom Harrison Talk 15:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  nice change lee 

message: Re two above topics:
On Johann Hari, he strikes me as "just some wanker" and I think the para shouldn't have a place here. Where the hell does he get this stat? And can you believe that I appear to be agreeing with Urth and Lee at the same time?! I think we're presenting hearsay and it should go...
On the NCTC stats, when I first added this the intention was "complicated picture" not slam-dunk Islamic extremists are the only one's in the terrorist business. A majority of specified attacks are Secular political and a majority of specified fatalities are Islamic extremist. But a majority of both over-all are unspecified. Thus, I don't know if it's appropriate for the lead. I also don't know if anyone but the NCTC currently tracks terrorist etiology. An equivalent stat from the U.N. would be interesting. Marskell 08:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about I make clear that most terrorism is unspecified?--Urthogie 08:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current edit places in context fully I hope. Also Urth, do you agree on dropping Johann Hari? Marskell 08:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.--Urthogie 09:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The percentage of terrorism that is Islamic extremist where a terrorist type can be specified according to blahblahblah seems like a mind-numbing factoid that belongs more at the end of an article than at the beginning. --Lee Hunter 12:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mind numbing is subjective.  To me its important.--Urthogie 12:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it is. I don't have an opinion one way or the other. I just feel that you shouldn't hit the reader with factoids (especially complex statements that require explanation and sourcing) before you've even introduced the subject. --Lee Hunter 14:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved to the third paragraph of the lead. Marskell 14:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That works for me. --Lee Hunter 14:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed, if only for unanimity:) Tom Harrison Talk 16:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cont'd

message: This section is needed in this article , and explicitely titled as such. Why? because there is ample evidence in the world today that there is a significant support for terrorism in the Muslim world. I have provided sources and unless you have been asleep over the past year you would know that this is the case.  What is there now , is just saying that Muslims reject terrorism which is not entirely correct. There is a very visible percentage of Muslims who support terrorism who make headlines nearly everyday in global news media.--CltFn 04:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a couple of problems here. The first is that the data (Pew Research) actually shows a mix. Some Muslims support terrorism and others (the majority) don't, so there's no reason to give it either a "support" or "oppose" headding. The second problem is that you are trying to push a logical fallacy that goes something like this: Hamas has committed terrorist acts, Palestinians supported Hamas in the recent elections, therefore Palestinians support terrorism. As the article points out, this wasn't a referendum on terrorism and there were a number of other factors besides terrorism in play. Furthermore, a follow up survey on the specific question of the use of violence, showed that the majority of Palestinians want Hamas to change their tactics. --Lee Hunter 15:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you saying that the palestinians who voted for the radical group Hamas actually disagree with their radical agenda?--CltFn 15:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The survey that followed the election strongly suggested that people voted for Hamas, despite their tactics and agenda, not because of it. --Lee Hunter 15:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I used to hold the same view as you CltFn, but if you do some reading you'll see the middle east is so fucked up that sometimes voting for terrorists is the more peaceful option-- both in the case of israel and in palestine :(--Urthogie 16:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that we need this debate, but sometimes voting for the hard-ass group, person, party etc. is the only way to move a stalled process forward. See: Ariel Sharon. Marskell 16:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: --Urthogie 16:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Interesting spin.--CltFn 17:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CltFn, if you want the sections that way, please supply verifiable proof that they elected Hamas because of terrorism.  Verifiability is the standard here, not truth.--Urthogie 17:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Muslim support of terrorism 

message: No, no, I love you all. The page hadn't shown up on my watchlist in three days and I felt something missing in my wiki life... As soon as I hit Save page it will be back at the top of the list... Marskell 22:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hah!  Yeah, it's been very rewarding sorting this out.  And I learned a lot that I didn't know about Hamas-- I used to completely hate this organization, but after doing some study I found that my own homeland has done a lot of terrorism in its early days...so i have a much wider view on the whole thing now.--Urthogie 08:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I hate you all!