Talk:Islamic terrorism/Archive of page move debate

message: :The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 10:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

message: Islamist terrorism → Islamic terrorism – "Islamic" is more commonly used.
===Voting===
:Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
*Support because policy comes before guidelines like consensus, precision, or other naming guidelines.--Urthogie 15:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you're correct in saying it links to guidelines that serve as suggestions.  In conflicts, we focus on the policies first.--Urthogie 21:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: All sorts of conventions and guidelines violate each other as well.  Thats why theyre guidelines and not policy.  Anyone can find guidelines that agree with them, but policy is what decides controversial issues.--Urthogie 18:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Please verify your opinion, or else you'll be the one that's POV.  Also, please assume good faith: those who support the move don't necessarily have any POV about what Islam is-- we just want to enforce policy--Urthogie 18:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not accusing the supporters of the move of bad faith, I just think they happen to be mistaken. 'Assume good faith' applies to all sides. Meanwhile I don't believe I have to verify my opinion. I have explained it and added it to the mix in the search for consensus about the correct article title. David | Talk 19:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Add any additional comments
This page does not in fact appear to have been listed on Requested Moves, despite the notice above. I have to go now, I have already spent too much time on this discussion today. Maybe one of the people who wants to have it moved would be good enought to list it there? Palmiro | Talk 15:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I will do that once all questions/challenges concerning my interpretation of policy have been asked.--Urthogie 16:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've listed this at WP:RM, and here, at Urthogie's request. Tom Harrison Talk 14:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are we voting, Tom?  Isn't the policy issue the deciding factor?  Also, what about Wikipedia is not a democracy?--Urthogie 15:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's part of the process for a controversial page move. The idea is to generate discussion and guage concensus. It's not really a ridgid vote-counting kind of operation, but if we move the page against concensus, the result would be unstable; someone would just move it back. Tom Harrison Talk 15:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Makes sense.  I'll vote then.--Urthogie 15:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Two questions. First, if there is no consensus, is the default to stay? And secondly, how long is this poll to run? Pepsidrinka 15:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:RM, "Approval voting is encouraged for page moves requested on this page. Requested moves may be implemented if there is a Wikipedia community consensus (generally 60% or more) supporting the moving of an article after five (5) days under discussion on the talk page of the article to be moved, or earlier at the discretion of an administrator. The time for discussion may be extended if a consensus has not emerged." My understanding is that if there is no consensus to move, the page remains under this title. Tom Harrison Talk 15:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I thought you said you were done watching this page?  Debate ended and you still voted, I find this completely unfair towards gaining a consensus-- instead you've just found a convenient way to enforced your opinion on the article title.  Oh well.--Urthogie 18:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm back. Sorry. --Lee Hunter 19:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You could just fix the sentence to read "Al-Qaeda is defined by most nations as a terrorist organization and an Islamic extremist group."   --Lee Hunter 21:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: There's no reason why we can't report, and when quoting them use, the terminology used by foreign governments, US or elsewhere. But I don't see why that should require us to adopt that terminology for the article title. Palmiro | Talk 13:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
*Support because policy comes before guidelines like consensus, precision, or other naming guidelines.--Urthogie 15:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you're correct in saying it links to guidelines that serve as suggestions.  In conflicts, we focus on the policies first.--Urthogie 21:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: All sorts of conventions and guidelines violate each other as well.  Thats why theyre guidelines and not policy.  Anyone can find guidelines that agree with them, but policy is what decides controversial issues.--Urthogie 18:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Please verify your opinion, or else you'll be the one that's POV.  Also, please assume good faith: those who support the move don't necessarily have any POV about what Islam is-- we just want to enforce policy--Urthogie 18:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not accusing the supporters of the move of bad faith, I just think they happen to be mistaken. 'Assume good faith' applies to all sides. Meanwhile I don't believe I have to verify my opinion. I have explained it and added it to the mix in the search for consensus about the correct article title. David | Talk 19:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: :Add any additional comments
This page does not in fact appear to have been listed on Requested Moves, despite the notice above. I have to go now, I have already spent too much time on this discussion today. Maybe one of the people who wants to have it moved would be good enought to list it there? Palmiro | Talk 15:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will do that once all questions/challenges concerning my interpretation of policy have been asked.--Urthogie 16:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've listed this at WP:RM, and here, at Urthogie's request. Tom Harrison Talk 14:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are we voting, Tom?  Isn't the policy issue the deciding factor?  Also, what about Wikipedia is not a democracy?--Urthogie 15:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's part of the process for a controversial page move. The idea is to generate discussion and guage concensus. It's not really a ridgid vote-counting kind of operation, but if we move the page against concensus, the result would be unstable; someone would just move it back. Tom Harrison Talk 15:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Makes sense.  I'll vote then.--Urthogie 15:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Two questions. First, if there is no consensus, is the default to stay? And secondly, how long is this poll to run? Pepsidrinka 15:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:RM, "Approval voting is encouraged for page moves requested on this page. Requested moves may be implemented if there is a Wikipedia community consensus (generally 60% or more) supporting the moving of an article after five (5) days under discussion on the talk page of the article to be moved, or earlier at the discretion of an administrator. The time for discussion may be extended if a consensus has not emerged." My understanding is that if there is no consensus to move, the page remains under this title. Tom Harrison Talk 15:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I thought you said you were done watching this page?  Debate ended and you still voted, I find this completely unfair towards gaining a consensus-- instead you've just found a convenient way to enforced your opinion on the article title.  Oh well.--Urthogie 18:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm back. Sorry. --Lee Hunter 19:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You could just fix the sentence to read "Al-Qaeda is defined by most nations as a terrorist organization and an Islamic extremist group."   --Lee Hunter 21:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: There's no reason why we can't report, and when quoting them use, the terminology used by foreign governments, US or elsewhere. But I don't see why that should require us to adopt that terminology for the article title. Palmiro | Talk 13:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I've had it with this discussion. As far as I'm concerned the onus is on the people who want to make a change to provide a clear and compelling reason why the change would help the reader or they should show how it would help the encyclopedia as a whole. I keep asking for reasons and all I get back are bogus numbers (as if counting Google hits somehow trumped rational arguments and explanations). This horse has been well and truly beaten into the ground. You can do what you like. It's off my watchlist. I've got more productive things to do with my time. --Lee Hunter 17:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With Lee no longer contributing to the argument(which is good) or the page(which sucks), I'm going to begin setting up a smooth transition to Islamic terrorism.  Ya'll can let me handle the process, all I need is to make sure all of you watch the page and keep it following policy.  Thanks, --Urthogie 00:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gloating is unbecoming and so is unilateralism. Lee made his arguments and stood by them which is his perogative. It's never good when somebody simply leaves a page. I'd suggest not adopting the "I will do X now..." argument. Marskell 00:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not gloating.  I'm just saying its good that he stopped arguing, as the policy issue was simply being sidestepped.  I wanted him to stay on the talk and article pages though, as he usually makes excellent edits.--Urthogie 00:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm outta here 

message: :sure . if they agree . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 20:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If noone opposes this in the next 48 hours, would a move be fair to make?--Urthogie 20:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No because each page would need a vote. The only thing we can do on this talk page is discuss whether this page should be moved. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 20:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok.  If noone opposes this page in the next 48 hours, would it make sense to move it? (I'll begin discussion at the other pages)--Urthogie 20:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You really should focus on this page for now since this is what you are concerned about. A vote should be held here to see if this is supported.--a.n.o.n.y.m   t 20:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm concerned about consistency and policy being applied at the related pages as well.  But like you said, I should bring them up seperately.  As far as voting, anyone has the chance to oppose this below, under the heading "Opposing votes."--Urthogie 20:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: There isn't even an article on Jewish terrorism. It's only a redirect. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 20:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes it all the much easier to redirect it and create a new article.  Which I've done.  Please contribute to it.--Urthogie 20:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Isn't Islamic preferable, as a Muslim is a person, not an adjective to describe such people.--Urthogie 21:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am undecided on this then. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 15:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Only one user on this very active talk page has actually voted oppose.  I think it's time to discuss if the page name will be Islamic extremist terrorism or Muslim extremist terrorism.  Palmiro, do you agree that its basically accepted that one of these two should be the new name?--Urthogie 21:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that seems clear, but now you will have to work out if either of them of itself commands consensus. Perhaps you should start a vote on that now? Palmiro | Talk 21:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vote created.  Thanks to everyone for staying reasonable, even if you disagree with the other party.  Excellent that we're starting to get somewhere(I think..?).--Urthogie 21:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: * It's good to see consensus breaking out. I would support this move. David | Talk 20:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support votes

message: #Support: my explanation is above.Urthogie 21:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I await this process with impatience, practically jiggling on the edge of my seat.. ;) Palmiro | Talk 17:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: In support of 'Islamic extremist terrorism'