User talk:Geo Swan/working/Religious conversion and terrorism

Does this make sense as an entry?
This entry seems like an excuse to publicize the study mentioned in it. Does it really warrant an entry of its own? Can this page be merged with another one? Any ideas?PelleSmith 00:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. Feel free to PROD it for that very reason.  The Behnam 00:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This most certianly is worthwile content, and a good article can be written on this topic. There are many people who convert to Islam and then become terrorists.--Sefringle 06:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? "Religious conversion and terrorism"?  The whole point of PRODing the entry was to suggest that the content be merged, and/or perhaps that the entry be renamed, or deleted if this can't be done.  Can you justify an entry called "religious conversion and terrorism"?  Your claim is that there are people who convert to Islam and then become terrorists.  Lets accept that this may be true, that does not mean that "religious conversion" (in general as the entry name would have it) and terrorism is notable or common enough to justify an entry.  Are you saying that you want to save the content or that you want to save the page as it is?  Please, in good faith, justify the existence of this entry (not just the particular information you wish to keep), and/or work towards implementing it usefully as one should when one de-PRODs an entry.  Thanks.PelleSmith 16:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Religious conversion and terrorism is a very notable concept. All the material is sourced and reliable, and recognized by reliable sources. I can find many more sources to prove reliability too, besides the ones that are already here. Any notable person who converted to another religion and then became a terrorist proves the notability of the subject, and the fact that many people do so further proves its notability. I can find nothing in the Deletion policy that says this article should be deleted. Would you mind telling me which policy of wikipedia this article violates. If it should be merged, see WP:MM. If you want to move it, see WP:RM. But wanting it merged or moved is not to be done through deletion process.--Sefringle 02:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case prove that it is notable as listed--"religious conversion and terrorism". The reason why it is not a notable topic is because in its generalizable form (as in the title of the entry) it is total and utter nonsense.  There is no causal connection between "conversion" to a religion and terrorism, nor has there ever been a scientific study that has proved any such connection.  What the entry highlights is ONE study which shows that a small number of people (35) from the entire continent of Europe and the United States of America have engaged in terrorist activity after converting to Islam.  This study does not generalize about "religion" or "religious conversion" at all.  At the bare minimum the entry name is completely misleading.  Also you know very well that articles do not have to violate any Wikipedia policies to be deleted, and that the PROD and AfD processes are not here just to vote on deleting or keeping an entry, but to keep the standards of Wikipedia and its individual entries in check.  This particular entry simply reports the findings of one study (along with some unreferenced musings by a French scholar).  As such the findings of this study, and the musings of the French scholar are misrepresented in the entry's title, which is why I believe it should 1) be deleted 2) be renamed or 3) be merged.  I have explained quite clearly why I PRODed it and now please either work on fixing it by way of editing or at least by proving how its current form is notable (as the de-PRODing guidelines suggest to good faith editors like yourself) or explain why you object when it gets an AfD.  Thanks and best.PelleSmith 03:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * NOTE: I think it should be deleted. My suggestion of merge, or move is for those who feel the content is informative.  Cheers.PelleSmith 03:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:DEL. That explains the reasons why an article should or should not be deleted. I'll add more sources as I find them, but heres a feew that briefly discusses the topic. --Sefringle 04:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And those sources illustrate again the problems with the entry "religious conversion and terrorism". What is the link between the two?  Why should we link them in an entry?  Why should we imply a connection?  The sources are first of all ONLY about militant ISLAM.  Why "religion" in general?  Are there any other "religions" that have even anecdotal evidence of a convert becoming militant after conversion?  The sources also prove only that some individuals who convert to a militant form of Islam have then engaged in radical and/or violent activities (e.g. terrorism).  What is the significance of "conversion" other than the fact that these individuals were not Muslims prior to becoming Muslims hence having to "convert" at some point?  The entry title implies a significance over and above the obvious.  Is there perhaps a very specific significance to certain organizations that embrace these rare non-Muslims, help them convert and then get them to aid in radical activities?  If so don't you think the matter is a bit too specific for its own entry?  Can you address any of these difficulties?  Do you plan on renaming ("moving" the entry) to specify that this isn't about "religion" but about militant Islam?  Why keep on throwing around meaningless policy questions when the issue here is the simple fact that this entry as it is doesn't meet the standards of an encyclopedia.PelleSmith 13:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to move the article to Conversion to Islam and terrorism, I have no problem with that, but I think there was a reason why the origional creater called it Religous conversion.--Sefringle 23:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And those reasons are?PelleSmith 00:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know.--Sefringle 00:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That about sums up the reasons I've heard for keeping this entry. Thanks.PelleSmith 00:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It also sums up the reasons I've heard for deleting this article.--Sefringle 01:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My appologies. Please see below, and above.  Cheers.PelleSmith 03:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggesting a Merge into Islamist terrorism
This page surely has nothing to do with "religion" generically. However, it also has nothing to do with "conversion" except circumstantially. That is, there is no substantive connection between "conversion" to religion, or Islam specifically, and terrorism. The entry is simply about converts to Islam who have become militant. The current entry title is simply fallacious and moving it to Conversion to Islam and terrorism would not add anything substantive. It would simply be another space in which to provide information about Islamist terrorism (granted through a very negligible aspect of such terrorism--recent converts to Islam). Therefore I suggest the information on this page merge into Islamist terrorism. Please consider the merits of this merge as the other option I am entertaining is an AfD. Thanks.PelleSmith 03:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "Zeal of a convert" is well known and documented. This article needs to further expanded. No, it should not be merged with Islamic Terrorism.--ISKapoor 18:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you can document it right? Don't just put in wikilinks to non-existing pages and then throw in poor references.  Why should it not be merged again?  What is the link between conversion and terrorism?  How does this relate to religion and not just Islam--the reference to Christian terrorists in India doesn't really prove anything.  There are Muslims and Hindus in India killing each other and now we're told there are Christians in the frey.  I'm not exactly surprised but the idea that their conversion is what has radicalized them is rather ludicrous.  Also the reference is not appropriate at all.  Again this page is about converts to Islam who have engaged in terrorist activity and NOT a causal relationship of any kind between conversion and terrorism.  Your edits only add to the fact that there are people who want as many entries as possible on Wikipedia that make a connection between Islam, terrorism and anything else that is uncouth.  Thanks for adding another "reference" to that fact.  Cheers.PelleSmith 02:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Several references have been added. I invite others to add more information.--ISKapoor 19:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Several references were red herrings of one variety or another. Please come back and add adequate ones.PelleSmith 02:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I note that you have removed most if the references that were added. That looks like vandalism. I also note that you have nominated the article for deletion. Thus you are not interested in seeing an improved article, rather you want to see the article disappear. It is an significant article that examines a significant and intriguiging component of terrrorism.--ISKapoor 17:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I want to see this as an entry onto itself go the way of the dodo bird. Looking at the history of my presence here this is abundantly clear.  I also PRODed the entry earlier for the same reason.  I have, however, also make several good faith attempts to allow editors to keep information from this entry in a more suitable format.  Don't blame me for wanting to contribute to an encyclopedia and not some OR propaganda forum.PelleSmith 20:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Why were the references to non-muslim terrorists removed?
Why were the references to non-muslim terrorists removed? -- Geo Swan 18:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No offense but the edit summaries specify exactly why each edit was made. Look over the edit history before you ask this type of question.  If you had done so I would have assumed you would be asking a question or posing a disagreement with my reasoning as specified in the edit summaries and not naively asking why they were removed.  If you are referring to the two anti-abortion activists who shot abortion doctors the answer is simple.  The reference provided for one of them made the murder out to be expressly AGAINST the Christian religion thereby negating the whole connection (which is debatably organized terrorism).  Neither of them make any connection between conversion and the horrific acts engaged in either.  They are simply irrelevant to the entry even anectdotally.  There is no argument that people with fundamentalist or zealous Christian belief systems may be at the other end of the weapon that kills an abortion doctor, but what does that have to do with conversion?  Where either of them even converts?  No information was provided, and again the religious leaders associated with these individuals denounced the acts as anti-Christian so I don't even understand the connection.   Anyway read the edit summaries at the very least so the question doesn't seem lazy.  Also ... there was no attempt here to remove specifically "non-Muslim" terrorists.  The intent was to remove "non-terrorists" who are really just criminals.PelleSmith 19:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

What's going on with these edit summaries?
What gives with this edit here and this edit here, as "revert(ing) poorly explained edit(s) -- see talk?" Geo Swan did you add something to the talk page that no one else can see? Also the only aspect you've reverted is the de-wikilinking of words that have no wiki entry. The majority of both of these edits were in adding new information and not reverting anything. Do you have something against productive edit summaries? How were mine poorly explained when I clearly wrote that I was removing wikilinking to non-existent entries, which you've added back? What purpose does such linking serve? It just adds that ugly red lettering into the text, but I guess that's a style issue. It would be nice, however, to have a clearer explanation of what those edits consisted of. Cheers.PelleSmith 03:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No "improvements"
I am going to leave the original here, and work on a version without PelleSmith's "improvements" at User:Geo Swan/working/Religious conversion and terrorism (fixed) Geo Swan 22:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

more time
I need another 24 hours Geo Swan 15:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So what's going on with this? Do you want comments on the version you've been working on?  By all accounts I still think it suffers the same OR concerns.  Have you thought of changing the name of the entry?PelleSmith 15:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)