Talk:Islamic terrorism/Archive of page move debate


 * 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. &mdash; Nightstallion (?) 10:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
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)
 * Support. Google says that both the New York Times and the BBC use "Islamic terrorism" more often than "Islamist terrorism". Kusma (討論) 16:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose as current name is more accurate, and policy (interpreted in any sensible way) seems to me to support it. Urthogie, the "policy page" your interpretation of which you are insisting on refers the reader specifically to the guideline pages you say must be discounted for detailed discussion of the issues, so your position is not very logical. Palmiro | Talk 18:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Support. Lengthy explanations for my position on this. I'm particularly troubled by the fact that choosing the much less common adjective forces us to explain things in ways that are ultimately false (ie., the non-existent State Department list of "Islamist" terrorist groups). Marskell 18:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Islamic terrorism is more common than Islamist terrorism. Support per this policy, although I do agree that the term "Islamist terrorism" is more precise, as discussed in the article. -Spaceriqui 19:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Moving this article to "Islamic terrorism" violates all sorts of conventions and guidelines about precision ("Convention: Please, do not write or put an article on a page with an ambiguously-named title as though that title had no other meanings!" and "Use the most specific terminology available, thus if someone is of Ethiopian descent one would describe them as Ethiopian, not African.") POV ("Choose a descriptive name for an article that does not carry POV implications.") and the WikiProject to counter systemic bias. --Lee Hunter 15:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Oppose as needlessly contentious and adding nothing of value. &#0151; JEREMY 16:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Agree with Lee and Palmiro. This title is more accurate. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 16:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Very strong oppose. The proposed title would be POV. Islam is a religion which in its fundamental texts opposes terrorism, although not all muslims interpret it that way. Islamism is a political ideology based on the religion. Terrorism is linked to the political ideology and not the religion. David | Talk 18:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Support My priorities are 1) the content of the article 2) that anything someone searches for should redirect appropriately and 3) the title of the article. I also have to take into account what I can reasonably expect to result elsewhere from a change here. I think it's legitimate, as simple consideration, to take into account whether a title offends a significant number of editors (whether that consideration is reciprocated or not.) I don't see how Islamic terrorism is inherently POV if Christian terrorism is not. Narrowly and logically, Islamic terrorism is a better title than Islamist terrorism; If the majority of what the article is about is described in the article's citations as Islamic terrorism, calling it Islamist is tough to justify, except as a more palatable euphenism. Tom Harrison Talk 19:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. The article only deals with Islamist organizations; another article can be started as necessary; see comments below. --Mgreenbe 19:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Agree with Lee and Palmiro. F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 19:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - more accuracy this way --HasNoClue
 * Oppose. Current title is more accurate. There is a redirect here from "Islamic Terrorism", right? So either term will find it. The fact that Islamic Terrorism is more common is interesting in its own way but not of great concern to us, who are more interested in accuracy. Herostratus 07:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * 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)
 * I will do that once all questions/challenges concerning my interpretation of policy have been asked.--Urthogie 16:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've listed this at WP:RM, and here, at Urthogie's request. Tom Harrison Talk 14:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Makes sense. I'll vote then.--Urthogie 15:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Urthogie, please limit your comments to the discussion section, otherwise the voting section will devolve into another lengthy debate. By harrassing everyone who makes an opposing vote, you are being needlessly confrontational and more than a little annoying. --Lee Hunter 18:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I'm back. Sorry. --Lee Hunter 19:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Part of what leads me to support this move is an observation by Marskell elsewhere on the page. The article says, "Al-Qaeda is defined by most nations as an Islamist terrorism group." I question the truth of that. I wonder if in fact Al-Qaeda is defined by most nations as an Islamic terrorist group. For some time the article clained the US State department maintained a list of Islamist terrorist organiztions. They don't; They maintain a list of "Foreign Terrorist Organizations (Islamic extremist)." Bending over backwards to avoid giving offense lead us to tell the reader something that wasn't true. Tom Harrison Talk 19:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

To quote the official line: "Disagreements should be resolved through consensual discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures." Even if the current title violates policy (which I'm not convinced of) consensus and accuracy show that we should keep it at "Islamist". --HasNoClue 08:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)

I'm outta here
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

=Let me tell you how it is= You're all wrong. Islamic and Islamist are two different types of words (adjective and noun, respectively) that refer to the exact same ideology. Whether or not the terrorism in question is carried out by a group of fundamentalist Islamic adherents or Islamist extremists, it means the exact same thing. It's a war over semantics, not over the proper title, which incidentally should be Muslim Extremist Terrorism. Not all Muslims are terrorists, that's a given. That's why the title should altogether be more clarified, instead of dissected into suffixes. Wikipedia gains nothing from this lengthy war, stop bickering and get back to work. --Mod 18:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Modulatum that this would be a better name than the current one, and I'd be willing to put policy aside to get this pragmatic solution.--Urthogie 18:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I also could live with Mod's new name (though his presentation of the idea is a little garish). Any other takers? To be clear, Islamist in the context of this article name is either "noun as adjective" (like turkey in "turkey dinner") or simply an adjective (like Christian in "Christian dinner"). American heritage allows for both an adjective and noun denotation.
 * Or Islamic extremist terrorism which conforms to the literature cited above from the U.S., Can and Brit gov's. Marskell 18:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This (initially overlooked &mdash; funny how &lt;font size=6&gt; does that) section is a good place for the explanation of my vote. At present, the page discusses only contemporary terrorism attributed to Islamist terrorist groups. (Caveat lector: inasmuch as the perpetrators are known/I can verify at a glance.  Some of them, particularly the bombings in Israel, seem dubious.  Who claimed responsibility?  Were they acting in the name of Islamism, Palestine, or bunny rabbits?)  The more broadly named Christian terrorism (as opposed to, say, Pro-life terrorism) attempts to deal with the entire history of terrorism perpetrated in the name of the Christian faith.
 * I see no reason, however, why both of the pages can't exist, Islamic terrorism being more broadly defined. If the move does not occur, I think the latter page should be created and the facts on this page verified and cited.  I would be okay with Islamic extremist terrorism, but extremist is (1) slightly subjective (but harming another is always "extreme") (2) unfairly applied, e.g. not to Christian terrorism or Religious terrorism. --Mgreenbe 19:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean by extremist being slightly subjective. This brings up another point: what if there is no non-extremist Islamic terrorism? To that I say, so what? Street fights occur in the Middle East all the time between all kinds of faiths. Would one of us jump right in the middle of it and verify how much of a religious zealot each participant is? Non-extremist terrorism occurs, but the ones that make the headlines of international newspapers are the most blinded by their faith.--Mod 19:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I also would rather have a different title than either "Islamist terrorism" or "Islamic terrorism". I'd prefer "Terrorism by Islamic extremists" but I could live with the other suggestions. --Lee Hunter 19:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this suggested title is that all Islamic terrorism is extreme. So it's redundant.--Urthogie 19:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Muslim Extremist Terrorism is much better . F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 19:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move to "Islamic extremist terrorism" or "Muslim extremist terrorism" (to be decided after consensus is reached on move)
Perhaps we could do this. Anyone oppose it? If not, we can move Jewish terrorism to Jewish extremist terrorism, Islamist terrorism to Islamic extremist terrorism, and Christian terrorism to Christian extremist terrorism.--Urthogie 20:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * sure . if they agree . F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 20:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If noone opposes this in the next 48 hours, would a move be fair to make?--Urthogie 20:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * I would support a move to Muslim extremist terrorism like Modulatom said and we will have to be very careful about who we call Muslim extremist.-- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 20:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't Islamic preferable, as a Muslim is a person, not an adjective to describe such people.--Urthogie 21:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I am undecided on this then. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 15:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: the proposal under discussion is to move the page from "Islamic terrorism" to either "Muslim extremist terrorism" or "Islamic extremist terrorism". If consensus is reached to move the page, a second vote will be held to decide between the two alternatives.

It looks like there is a consensus to move this page to Islamic extremist terrorism. Is that correct, or is everyone just taking a break? I'll give it another day in any case. Tom Harrison Talk 20:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Support votes

 * It's good to see consensus breaking out. I would support this move. David | Talk 20:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Very strong support including "extremist" before "terrorism" is very important, no matter what word come before them. --171.64.200.110 02:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I would prefer focusing on this page and reaching a consensus first before addressing the other pages. If the editors of the other page disagree, we can regroup then.  Spaceriqui 05:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support move to "Islamic extremist terrorism" and yes, very excellent to see some movement toward consensus. "Islamic extremist" I'd say is preferable to "Muslim..." because it better corresponds to the gov lists quoted above. This largely addresses my concern over conventional usage and helps alleviate the worry that the title caricatures the religion as a whole rather than radicals on it's fringe. "Islamist" would still have a place here of course, but we wouldn't be in the awkward position of glossing with that term every time. Similar Jewish and Christian pages must be judged on their own merits. Marskell 12:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support BYT 12:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Conditional support The title is redundant but for the common good; my support is conditional on verification and citation of the attacks listed, with the identification of appropriate attacks as particularly Islamist (self-identifying/government-indicated) and others as merely (?) perpetrated in the name of Islam (self-identifying). --Mgreenbe 12:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support- most pragmatic solution.--Urthogie 13:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. "Islamic extremist terrorism" would be the more correct term, as has been thoroughly pointed out in the course of the discussion both above and below. "Muslim..." would, however, be gramatically faulty, and hard\impossible\silly to implement as a naming convention for other religious terrorist articles.--TVPR 11:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Opposition votes

 * Strongly oppose. This article clearly deals with terrorism carried out by Islamist organisations. I think it is ludicrous that we have to jump through so many hoops to maintain the most simple, straightforward and accurate title. "Muslim extremist" is useless. How do we decide what's constitutes extremist? In terms of Islamist politics, for example, al-Qaeda is clearly extremist, but Hamas quite arguably isn't. Then, would this title cover acts by Muslim extremists like Ahmad Jibril who aren't inspired by Islamist ideology? Look, this page deals with terrorism by Islamist groups. Let's call it by its name. Finally, I don't think this vote should have been proposed while the other one was still going on.Palmiro | Talk 12:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The other has failed to reach consensus. And so far, you're the only one who is against this one.  By the way, not all Islamic extremist terrorism is part of that revival movement referred to as "Islamist"-- thats just one type of extremist islamic terrorism.--Urthogie 13:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * To User:Palmiro - The problem, and it's a big one, is that while readers well versed in the subject may understand the distinction between Islamist and Islamic, most readers don't and are bewildered by that term. Also there are questions of equity and paralellism -- what is the analogue for "Islamist" we should be using at "Christian terrorism"? A while back there was, I believe, a movement to shift all of these articles to "militant" or something. That was an attempt to take some of the adrenaline out of the discussion, but it didn't fly. Probably shouldn't have, because "terrorism" is the term people are searching for, and Urthogie's point is well taken. What we put in front of that needs to be exportable to other articles, not a special solution crafted for this one. One man's view, anyway. BYT 13:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "In terms of Islamist politics, for example, al-Qaeda is clearly extremist..." But Al-Quaeda is more often described as an "Islamic extremist" group I'd suggest, both by governments and media. "Hamas quite arguably isn't." Insofar as it has much greater sympathy amongst Muslims you maybe correct. But insofar as the use of suicide bombing and the targetting of civilans are inherently extremist activities I'd say not. If, as some tea-leaves readers are suggesting, political power transforms Hamas, both terrorist and extremist may become inaccurate. At present they are on-target labels. "Would this title cover acts by Muslim extremists like Ahmad Jibril who aren't inspired by Islamist ideology?" Yes, why not? Marskell 13:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As a Muslim, my personal position, offered solely for the purpose of context here, is that someone who violates the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh) by authoriziing or engaging in a) attacks against civilians or b) suicide 'is by definition an extremist. Qur'an uses, I believe, analogous terminology here about "those who transgress the limits." So I have no problem with the word "extremist."
 * NOTA BENE: We need "fundamentalist" clerics -- that is to say clerics who speak clearly and unambiguously about the "fudamentals" of the authentic Sunnah (e.g., you are sinning against Allah[swt] if you violate Qur'an or Sunnah in these ways) -- if we wish to defeat terrorism!!!!!!!!!!!!! BYT 13:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Brandon, while I would dearly like to believe that most Muslim authorities believe Hamas to be extremist, I'm not at all sure that that is the case. Let's recall that Hamas is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose Egyptian branch is probably the most influential non-extreme Islamist organisation in the Arab world. Even in Syria most opinion no longer regards the MB as really extremist, as far as I can tell. Most Arab governments won't accept that Hamas is terrorist, let alone extremist. Of course, Palestinian leftists may call Hamas an extreme-right organisation in unguarded moments, but they are themselves atypical and by now far more marginal in Palestinian society than Hamas is. Equally, Hezbollah, for all its inspiration from Khomeini's Iran, is an accepted part of the Lebanese political scene. There is, by contrast, pretty much general consensus that the various takfiri groups and al-Qaeda are extremists. As Mgreenbe said, calling someone extremist is inherently POV. Calling people extremist because they are seen in Europe or the US as such, when they are not so regarded in the country where they operate, is not only POV but beneath the aspirations of an encyclopaedia that aims to be global in scope. Palmiro | Talk 13:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ideologically speaking, Hamas is not by any means on the extremist end of Islamist politics, regardless of the tactics it uses. If you do indeed want an article that would include Ahmad Jibril as well as Hamas and al-Qaeda, that just goes to show what I've been arguing all along: that this article is one about Islamist terrorism, and an article about Islamic terrorism or terrorism by Muslim extremists may or may not be worth having, but it would be about something different. I think that this article, which is specifically about Islamist terrorism, is worth having as such.
 * I think most people can readily understand, even if they haven't heard the term Islamist before (and how many people can really be in that position?), that it is an an adjective relating to an ideology or ideological tendency, whereas "Islamic" is an adjective relating to a religion. This article is clearly about the former. Of course, if you want an article about something else, it should have whatever is the most appropriate name for that subject. All these comments, I feel, only prove my point that "Islamist terrorism" is the correct title for the article we have here. Palmiro | Talk 13:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

First, we need to keep normative judgements about the nature of a particular resistance movement seperate from quantifiable metrics that guide us to definitions. It is in the former sense that "most Arab governments won't accept that Hamas is terrorist"; most Arab governments don't want to de-legitimate Palestinian self-determination in the slightest even if it means providing cover to militancy that in other contexts is a serious threat to them.

As far the latter consideration, what constitutes extremism or terrorism is itself a contentious issue of course, but if we accept certain basics such as civilian targeting, fear and intimidation as ends in-themselves etc. by extra-state groups, Hamas is a terrorist organization. That some, many, (even if it where all) Muslims and Muslim governments are sympathetic to Hamas doesn't change that. The IRA always had support from Catholics in Belfast (and Boston for that matter). Their political wing is now in government and re-unification may yet be reached. Many people still "think they're right." None of this changes the fact that the IRA (in post-1969 form) is a terrorist organization.

As for what is becoming of an encyclopedia, holding to this distinction strikes me as most important. Marskell 14:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I am slightly confused by this comment. Do you consider that terrorist organisations are automatically extremist? If so, by that logic the word "extremist" is in any case redundant.
 * If not, how do you propose a "quantifiable metric" that will enable us to say "x is extremist"? "Extremism" can only be relative and it's not up to us to decide someone is extremist - what matters is whether they can be said to be such while respecting NPOV. I don't see how you can respect NPOV and Wikipedia's global aspirations, and at the same time describe organisations as extremist when they are not regarded as such in the countries where they operate. Palmiro | Talk 14:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "Do you consider that terrorist organisations are automatically extremist?" Relative to a given political spectrum, not necessarily, which was half of what I was trying to get at. Relative to the possible tactics deployed in a resistance movement, yes, which is the other half. Is suicide bombing an extreme act of agitation, tactically and in terms of consequence? I'd say it can't not be and this I find relevant. Is suicide bombing a justified, sympathized with act in X case given power asymmetries? Perhaps yes, perhaps no, but essentially irrelevant to how we label the behaviour (and not something we are in a position to answer anyhow).
 * And to be clear about one thing: I am giving weight to the anglo govs' definitions not to introduce systemic bias but only because the English Wiki ought to consider them when debating conventional usage. Of course, the status of the groups in their countries of operation is also absolutely relevant and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I'm curious the label the Israeli government deploys in categorizing groups incidentally, but unfortunately it's censored for me--if someone could redact that to here it would be appreciated. Marskell 14:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Palmiro makes a good point and I was saying this before that we will have to be very careful who we add here from now on. Because Hamas is not an extremist organization by most definitions. This is why Islamist terrorism may be the best title. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 15:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, there's the argument about a thousand flowers... We could have two or three shorter, more specified pages and this as a disambig. Marskell 15:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In principal that sounds fine, but what would the smaller articles be called? And anyway (remounting my high horse) the thing about this particular title here is that it's not ambiguous. I don't think anyone objecting to it has actually claimed that it is ambiguous, an argument that has by contrast been made (perhaps mostly by me) against the alternatives. Maybe Islamic terrorism should be a disambig. Though have we any actual evidence that it is commonly used to refer to anything other than terrorism by Islamist organisations?
 * I would be particularly un-keen on us getting a page with such a controversial/inaccurate title that it would inevitably acquire several prominently-placed paragraphs pointing out why the name itself shouldn't be applied to the phenomenon... Palmiro | Talk 15:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * (addressing Marskell, after edit conflict) Right, I think I now see what you are getting at. First of all, in my opinion, while this is the English wiki, it's not intended just, or even primarily, for readers in Anglo-Saxon countries - it's meant to be global in scope. So it shouldn't reflect primarily Anglo-Saxon views of what constitutes extremism.
 * If you agree that "the status of the groups in their countries of operation is also absolutely relevant and I didn't mean to imply otherwise", would you not agree that it would be illogical to describe groups as extremist and deal with them under that heading, where they are not generally considered to be such in their countries of operation?
 * Secondly, sorry if I am labouring the point, but we seem to agree on premises yet come to different conclusions... if you do think that these groups are not necessarily extremist in terms of their political position, but can be described as extremist solely as a function of their engaging in terrorist activity, then is the latter consideration not adequately covered by the fact that we call the article "xxx terrorism", and should respect for the former consideration not impel us to avoid calling them extremists in the title and using the term only with appropriate qualifications or citations in the text? Palmiro | Talk 15:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Some terrorism is Islamist, some Islamic, and some a bit of both. However, all Islamist terrorists are also Islamic extremists.  As a side note, I want to make everyone aware that this page move goes through if 60 percent or more of the voters support it after 5 days.--Urthogie 15:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Marskell, the agreement is for this page to be moved, not made into a disambig. Urthogie said that this was a page move to Modulatom's idea. Besides it's easier for people to find out about these organizations on one article. So urthogie if you are trying to reach consensus please make it clear to the voters what the future of this page is. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 15:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Some terrorism is Islamist, some Islamic, and some a bit of both. However, all Islamist terrorists are also Islamic extremists.  As a side note, I want to make everyone aware that this page move goes through if 60 percent or more of the voters support it after 5 days.--Urthogie 15:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yet again, this proposed move has not been listed on WP:RM. Can you please fix that? And remove the previous move notice if it has been agreed that it is dead.


 * And could someone please clarify what the proposed move is to? Is it to Modulatom's proposal (as initially indicated in the heading) - Muslim extremist terrorism - or to "Islamic extremist terrorism"? Palmiro | Talk 15:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming we can decide that once we see the consensus. The way I see it, Muslim extremist terrorism is simply ungrammatical and perhaps more a slur than anything else.  It's like saying Jew extremist terrorism :)  By the way, I'll list this at proposed moves, and get rid of the old move discussion.--Urthogie 15:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I think it's unfair to ask people to vote on a proposal that could mean either of two different things, and there seem to be a few support votes above that give no sign of preferring one or the other. If I had to choose between these two, I would certainly choose "Islamic extremist" over "Muslim extremist" - but perhaps others disagree. I would recommend that you edit the heading to make it clear which you are proposing; that will help anyone new to the discussion know what is being debated. Palmiro | Talk 15:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes the voters who voted above will probably need to know before this is an actual vote. Right now they think it is to Modulatoms idea. -- a.n.o.n.y.m   t 15:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * We won't be making the move right after this vote reaches consensus. After this we'll have a (much less debated) decision between the two.  No need to worry.--Urthogie 16:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

-->I've edited the heading to reflect this, but I think it would be better to either decide on one of them now or to hold a three way vote. As it is you are asking people to buy a pig in a poke. Palmiro | Talk 16:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * See the point is that you are trying to move a page, but don't know where. Voters need to know this before they vote. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 16:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I actually think we're rushing a little both on this vote and on the previous and I actually first assumed the header was just a talking point. We've just now gotten in the same ballpark (or at least the parking lot of the stadium :) in terms of finding consensus. It was in that sense I threw out the disambig idea, Anon, to see what people thought. To expand on that (tweak as you like): Islamic terrorism is disambig, with Islamist terrorism being the main thing we lead with, say a stubbish page on Marxist-Islamic terrorist connections, and a third page covering ethno-religious sectarianism that isn't especially political (say, the Janjaweed) which might not actually take terrorism in the title. I'm not saying I definitely want this, just that we could think about it.

Re the long question from Palm that began "if you do think that these groups are not necessarily extremist in terms of their political position..." I agree with the implied point about redundancy, (i.e., "extremist (tacticlly speaking) terrorism" could be criticized with "no shit," in the same way "violent terrorism" could be) and I do see the point that "extremist (politically speaking) terrorism" may not be wholly accurate for certain groups in certain Muslim societies. To repeat what I see as counter-vailing positives: I still believe "Islamic" works fine BTW. Yes, add in other groups or individuals; expand the intro; add sources; make it a full page dealing with any and all terrorism of or relating to Muslims or Islam. I have no desire to simply rename and then do a find/replace and leave it at that. Marskell 17:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It addresses the concern I've had about us glossing with a lesser-used term where our sources don't. It is in popular use to a degree that Islamist is not.
 * It addresses the concern that Lee amongst others had that "Islamic" by itself constituted a smear against the faith. I haven't bought this argument at all, but adding extremist was a compromise in this regard as well.
 * Agreed, this move will also lead us to expand and better the article.--Urthogie 17:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

A consensus has been reached that the current name is less preferable to one of the other two
So now its time to pick which one. Like Palmiro said, if neither of these gets consensus, the old title stays. So try to reach consensus. Anyways, heres my argument: Muslim extremist terrorism is gramatically inaccurate. If you dont believe me, try saying this outloud: Jew extremist terrorism. So thats my vote. Please vote below, and supply a reason.--Urthogie 21:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The word "Muslim" can be an adjective or a noun whereas "Jew" is always a noun ("Jewish" is the adjectival form).--Lee Hunter 14:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but that confusion is the issue people seem to have with it.--Urthogie 15:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

In support of 'Islamic extremist terrorism'

 * 1) Support: my explanation is above.Urthogie 21:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support: Accurate, less likely to offend. Tom Harrison Talk 21:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support as between these two, though I don't believe the other is grammatically any worse, I'm not sure that this avoids offence, and I obviously have considerable reservations about both. However, this one is closer to getting across the important point that we are talking about "terrorism" with a politico-religious motivation, not terrorism that happens to be carried out by members of a given religion. Palmiro | Talk 22:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak Support - I missed out on the previous discussion. My only concern is that  this proposed name only has818 hits and does not seem to meet the common names guideline - Spaceriqui 23:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Islamic extremist or extremism are both well attested. Given the three term conjunction there's obviously going to be a decline. Remove quotes and you get 3 million hits--I'd suggest in a lot of cases you'd have things like "an Islamic extremist group which has carried out terrorist acts..." Upon adopting this we'll have ample scope to clarify some of the concerns that Palm has had and detail the nuances of usage. Marskell 08:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I await this process with impatience, practically jiggling on the edge of my seat.. ;) Palmiro | Talk 17:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Support.--TVPR 08:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support The name is awkward; I still like two pages (Islamic and then Islamist terrorism); but given acceptance, do it. --Mgreenbe 09:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments
Funny thing I noticed. We're all supporting terrorism! You terrorists!--Urthogie 09:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems like an obvious consensus. How about 48 more hours and we move, unless theres any opposition.--Urthogie 10:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.