This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Muslim attitudes toward terrorism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What exactly is the scope of this article? Because if I was to begin listing every condemnation of terrorism by a Muslim cleric, the article would not end. VR talk 00:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
And again im deleting this, despite a clear bot response claiming ive given "no reason". Hamas is a recognised government. It's policies are not "Islamic", whatever the hell that means, and is irrelevant to this article. Trying to tie in support of an Islamic government in a democractic election as "Muslims support terrorism" is not only POV but COMPLETELY against Wikipedias rules. It's being removed. 124.148.221.42 ( talk) 08:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane
In its current state, [1] this article is obviously a polemic that gives the impression of trying to rectify an idea that Muslims support, or at least do not actively speak out against, terrorism. Example of this attitude are present in:
I'm not placing a POV tag on here since these are only my initial impressions. Maybe when somebody searches for reliable sources along these lines to balance the article, it will turn out to be more balanced than I initially perceived it to be. Shrigley ( talk) 00:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the following sentence from the introduction of the article
The sentence has been removed for the following reasons:
This article seems a little biased. Especially when it comes to recent examples. This page is about Muslim attitudes towards terrorism, and yet it makes no mention of the fact that Islamic countries like Pakistan have trained and supported terror groups to attack India and Afghanistan. I think a fact of this magnitude cannot be ignored, and if it is, it clearly points to the biased nature of this article. Perhaps a debate is needed for the Wikipedia:NPOV dispute tag on the article. Aditya San. ( talk) 16:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
What on earth does "Muslim attitudes toward terrorism" even mean? How do you write an article about the attitudes of 1.6 billion people toward a topic? Would it make sense to have an article entitled "Chinese attitudes toward terrorism" or "Muslim attitudes toward waffles"?
I suggest that this article be removed entirely for being so overly vague as to be meaningless. Earksiinni ( talk) 08:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I added the POV tag to this article, because it is horrendously one-sided. It takes no account of the fact that the definition of "terrorism" varies among different groups of people and seems to be an attempt to whitewash history. 142.105.159.60 ( talk) 01:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
There is a fairly extensive section on Muslim attitudes toward terrorism at Islamic terrorism. We should clearly choose one or the other to focus on. I would advocate merging this separate article into this "mother" article, as there isn't all that much material, and it will be easier to maintain a properly balanced article in one larger article devoted to the topic. But willing to be convinced otherwise. Peregrine981 ( talk) 21:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I just checked manually. I am not a bot. The archived linked failed. I got the following from the Internet Archive for the link, "Si è verificato un inconveniente con questo articolo, siamo spiacenti." As for the original link to the website, adniki dot com, I got a 404 not found error.-- FeralOink ( talk) 00:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Amatulic: Your obvious bias is showing, pal. Do you need a second source that spells basic logic out more explicitly before you will allow truthful extrapolation of the given data? Here, then. And I quote: "Muslims polled in the Palestinian territories were the only group to express majority support for suicide bombings, the Washington Free Beacon noted. A majority of Muslims polled in countries like Pakistan, Jordan and Turkey said suicide bombings are “never” justified in the name of Islam."
If Palestinian Muslims are the "only" group to express majority support for suicide bombings, according to Pew's poll data, then it stands to reason that they are, indeed, "more likely to support suicide bombing than any other country or territory of Muslims on the planet," as I stated, since every other country *must*, again by virtue of simple logic, have support for suicide bombings as a minority stance if Palestinians are the only ones who support it as a majority. If you support suicide bombings, and you are the majority of the population, then, yet again by virtue of simple logic, you cannot be in favor of non-violent diplomacy or peace. The problem is widespread, since a majority supports it. And, clearly, that support for suicide bombing has complicated the I/P peace process, given that Israel had to wall off the entire Palestinian territories to finally put a stop to it.
So what I had to say is not editorializing - it's a fact that has now been shown to you twice. Put my edit back, and stow your clearly biased Jew-hatred back where it belongs - in your own head.
this document is full of lies and needs to have more background search — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.192.117.3 ( talk) 20:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I am removing this sentence from the intro: However the widespread involvement of Muslims in almost every Terrorist group is the reason for threat among the people, against the Muslims. It has no source, it's not grammatically correct, and I'm not 100% certain what it's meant to mean. However I'm quite certain that the claim that Muslims are involved in almost every terrorist group is not true, and this sentence was inserted by a new user who made no other edits, and I think they were just inserting their opinion. There are many terrorist groups that are focused around other ideologies, for example white supremacy and male supremacy. My sources for that are here and here. -- 24.108.52.222 ( talk) 23:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Anjem Choudary is an idiot. We shouldn't be giving WP:UNDUE attention to him in this article. This article is about "Muslim" attitudes and there are 1.6 billion of them. VR talk 06:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Muslim attitudes toward terrorism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What exactly is the scope of this article? Because if I was to begin listing every condemnation of terrorism by a Muslim cleric, the article would not end. VR talk 00:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
And again im deleting this, despite a clear bot response claiming ive given "no reason". Hamas is a recognised government. It's policies are not "Islamic", whatever the hell that means, and is irrelevant to this article. Trying to tie in support of an Islamic government in a democractic election as "Muslims support terrorism" is not only POV but COMPLETELY against Wikipedias rules. It's being removed. 124.148.221.42 ( talk) 08:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane
In its current state, [1] this article is obviously a polemic that gives the impression of trying to rectify an idea that Muslims support, or at least do not actively speak out against, terrorism. Example of this attitude are present in:
I'm not placing a POV tag on here since these are only my initial impressions. Maybe when somebody searches for reliable sources along these lines to balance the article, it will turn out to be more balanced than I initially perceived it to be. Shrigley ( talk) 00:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the following sentence from the introduction of the article
The sentence has been removed for the following reasons:
This article seems a little biased. Especially when it comes to recent examples. This page is about Muslim attitudes towards terrorism, and yet it makes no mention of the fact that Islamic countries like Pakistan have trained and supported terror groups to attack India and Afghanistan. I think a fact of this magnitude cannot be ignored, and if it is, it clearly points to the biased nature of this article. Perhaps a debate is needed for the Wikipedia:NPOV dispute tag on the article. Aditya San. ( talk) 16:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
What on earth does "Muslim attitudes toward terrorism" even mean? How do you write an article about the attitudes of 1.6 billion people toward a topic? Would it make sense to have an article entitled "Chinese attitudes toward terrorism" or "Muslim attitudes toward waffles"?
I suggest that this article be removed entirely for being so overly vague as to be meaningless. Earksiinni ( talk) 08:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I added the POV tag to this article, because it is horrendously one-sided. It takes no account of the fact that the definition of "terrorism" varies among different groups of people and seems to be an attempt to whitewash history. 142.105.159.60 ( talk) 01:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
There is a fairly extensive section on Muslim attitudes toward terrorism at Islamic terrorism. We should clearly choose one or the other to focus on. I would advocate merging this separate article into this "mother" article, as there isn't all that much material, and it will be easier to maintain a properly balanced article in one larger article devoted to the topic. But willing to be convinced otherwise. Peregrine981 ( talk) 21:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I just checked manually. I am not a bot. The archived linked failed. I got the following from the Internet Archive for the link, "Si è verificato un inconveniente con questo articolo, siamo spiacenti." As for the original link to the website, adniki dot com, I got a 404 not found error.-- FeralOink ( talk) 00:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Amatulic: Your obvious bias is showing, pal. Do you need a second source that spells basic logic out more explicitly before you will allow truthful extrapolation of the given data? Here, then. And I quote: "Muslims polled in the Palestinian territories were the only group to express majority support for suicide bombings, the Washington Free Beacon noted. A majority of Muslims polled in countries like Pakistan, Jordan and Turkey said suicide bombings are “never” justified in the name of Islam."
If Palestinian Muslims are the "only" group to express majority support for suicide bombings, according to Pew's poll data, then it stands to reason that they are, indeed, "more likely to support suicide bombing than any other country or territory of Muslims on the planet," as I stated, since every other country *must*, again by virtue of simple logic, have support for suicide bombings as a minority stance if Palestinians are the only ones who support it as a majority. If you support suicide bombings, and you are the majority of the population, then, yet again by virtue of simple logic, you cannot be in favor of non-violent diplomacy or peace. The problem is widespread, since a majority supports it. And, clearly, that support for suicide bombing has complicated the I/P peace process, given that Israel had to wall off the entire Palestinian territories to finally put a stop to it.
So what I had to say is not editorializing - it's a fact that has now been shown to you twice. Put my edit back, and stow your clearly biased Jew-hatred back where it belongs - in your own head.
this document is full of lies and needs to have more background search — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.192.117.3 ( talk) 20:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I am removing this sentence from the intro: However the widespread involvement of Muslims in almost every Terrorist group is the reason for threat among the people, against the Muslims. It has no source, it's not grammatically correct, and I'm not 100% certain what it's meant to mean. However I'm quite certain that the claim that Muslims are involved in almost every terrorist group is not true, and this sentence was inserted by a new user who made no other edits, and I think they were just inserting their opinion. There are many terrorist groups that are focused around other ideologies, for example white supremacy and male supremacy. My sources for that are here and here. -- 24.108.52.222 ( talk) 23:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Anjem Choudary is an idiot. We shouldn't be giving WP:UNDUE attention to him in this article. This article is about "Muslim" attitudes and there are 1.6 billion of them. VR talk 06:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)