Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kidnapping in Islamism (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. There are quite a few disparate comments here and it took me a while to go through all of it. I will not address every point (that would double the size of this already long AfD). The arguments brought forward by Carrite, Drmies, and DGG are very compelling. I don't think anybody would like to argue that kidnapping is an essential characteristic of Islamism (or political Islam, or however one would like to call it), nor that only Islamists kidnap. Hence, "kidnapping in Islamism" is OR/SYNTH. As pointed out by Chillum, the available sources lists/discuss events, but do not address the generalized topic of "kidnapping in Islamism" as such. I could imagine that "Kidnapping in terrorism" could be a valid article, but that should really be started from scratch. Randykitty (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Kidnapping in Islamism
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * Delete: Original research. This is an essay. or consider merging it with Kidnapping in terrorism. There is nothing unique about kindapping in islamism that is different from kindapping in terrorism in general. DrSultan85 (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC) blocked sock--Shrike (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)  per this Sockpuppet investigations/The Determinator.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: Original research. This is an essay. or consider merging it with Kidnapping in terrorism. There is nothing unique about kindapping in islamism that is different from kindapping in terrorism in general. DrSultan85 (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC) blocked sock--Shrike (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)  per this Sockpuppet investigations/The Determinator.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Kidnapping by Islamists in Algerian and the Philippines undertaken as a lever to force the governments of France and Germany to alter their foreign / military stance toward the Islamist government of Syria/Iraq seems unique and differnet to the world's major news organizations.ShulMaven (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Kidnapping in terrorism does not exist as an article as such. It is a redirect.
 * Comment ETA kidnapped and killed Miguel Ángel Blanco. Let us stop trying to show islamists as exclusive terrorists. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I find the article's subject confusing. Much of the kidnapping is actually slavery by another word. And some of it is criminal activities and nothing else. The current title, "Kidnapping in Islamism", seems also overly broad for an article that mentions only very recent or current events. It needs a title chance if it is to be kept in its current restricted form. Maybe "Islamist kidnapping"? And if its content were to be expanded in scope and time period a title like "Kidnapping in Islamic culture" might be more appropriate. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note to Closer Non admin Close as Keep by WritingEnthusiast14 was reopened by Drmies .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete and possibly merge with an article about kidnapping: My primary reason is that this article is only using sources in which either the terrorists themselves or experts on the area of terrorism are referenced to. But what does islam say about kidnapping? In my opinion, this would be something which might give an addition to this article which is useful for the reader and give good insightful information, you will have to use an academic source though, but the article is too much focused on things which other articles also talk about. My second reason is the title, "kidnapping in islamism" is far from neutral. I agree with DrSultan85 as a non-muslim that this is shedding a bad light on muslims, as the title of this article already seems to claim that this is some common practice in islam, which I highly doubt it is. Just my opinion. Bokareis (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "shedding a bad light on muslims" is not a reason to delete an article! Kidnapping IS and always has been a common practice in Islam (by Muslims, not by "Islamists"), though the article's restricted aims (dealing only with recent events) does not reflect that. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Kidnapping is a common practice in Islam" is a pretty disgusting statement--not just POV, but disgusting. Do we need to prove that kidnapping is common practice throughout the world? Or do you have a reliable, objective source that explains this, and how this supposed love for kidnapping is somehow essentially Muslim? What blog will you point to? Drmies (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with the above. Kidnapping is kidnapping! There is nothing special about Islam and kidnapping. The article hasWP:POV issues and as does the title. Last AfD was kept for procedural reasons, and the nominator withdrew the nomination. Valid concerns were raised there as well. The Determinator  p  t  c  22:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC) Nominator blocked indef Sockpuppet investigations/The Determinator. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. In an article of this title, I would expect some discussion of how these groups justify what they are doing in terms of Islamic law. But the discussion of motives is completely cynical. Of course there are Islamic laws relevant to kidnapping, so I cannot agree with the view that, "There is nothing special about Islam and kidnapping." Claimsworth (talk) 04:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC) (sock)


 * I think this can usefully be overhauled as Kidnapping in terrorism, which is currently a redirect. I think there's certainly something to be said about the use of kidnapping by terrorist groups, and Islamist ones have been in the news lately. However, as other users have pointed out, there's nothing about any of this that's especially specific to Islamist terrorists. Miguel Ángel Blanco by Basque separatists, Aldo Moro by the Brigate Rosse, some Army of God and other anti-abortion kidnappings... –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. The notability of the topic is clearly established by the references provided in the article, including for example the book "Islamic Terror Abductions in the Middle East" by Shay. The references discuss this topic as such, so it's not synthesis. The objections seem to be mainly about WP:NPOV, but that is not a reason to delete the article. Articles are supposed to be improved to accord with that policy, not be deleted. While kidnapping is a tactic that has been used by numerous armed groups throughout history, and there is not much essentially different about kidnappings by islamists versus those by people of other religions or ideologies, kidnappings by islamist groups have attracted attention as a specific phenomenon and been discussed in that way, which justifies having this article. In the same way, it could be justified to have an article on kidnappings in Colombia, bombings in Ireland, suicide attacks by Japanese in World War 2, and so forth, because these were significant phenomena even though numerous different groups, including many that are well-regarded by most people today, have used the same tactics. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. If the article were changed to "kidnapping in terrorism" or something similar, as some editors have suggested, that likely would lead to a violation of WP:SYNTH. As it stands the topic of the article is notable in its own right. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep That's a good point. If the category exists in the literature, then we can have an article about it. That non-Muslims kidnap as well is really neither here nor there. Claimsworth (talk) 01:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment All kidnapping is terrorism is one way or another. The above example of suicide Japanese bombers in WW2 is not relvant. As in WW2 there were not more bombings elsewhere. But in case of kidnappings there are more in Mexico than any other place in the world. Any material worth rescuing should be merged with kidnapping, the rest should be removed.


 * Category DOES NOT exist. I think reporting one book hardly establishes the category. ALL the other references relate to terrorism and one particular organization, and that is what makes it a WP:SYNTH Sammy1339 and Claimsworth, both of your points assume that category is establishes, when in fact neither of you have shown that the category is established. The Determinator  p  t  c  02:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have wonder if this objection is meant seriously. There are headlines linking Islam and kidnapping all the time: Obama's Diplomacy by Twitter; Appeasing Radical Islam Invites a Result like the Nigerian Kidnappings, Kidnapping shows how France, despite opposition to Iraq war, is not immune to threats from radical Islam, Militants Seek Group Edict on Kidnappings (This is about a terrorist group that asked some Muslim clerics if is OK to kidnap). Prominent Sunni cleric says wartime kidnapping is permissible -- but hostages can't be killed, Kidnapping of diplomat un-Islamic, and Lebanon's top Shiite cleric bans kidnapping of foreigners. That's just a few examples, the tip of the iceberg. Claimsworth (talk) 02:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm gonna go with delete on this one. Some of the stuff in there is worthy of an encyclopedia. A lot of it is just being used for hate-mongering. I am not 100% sure how this works. Some of these above references say Islam opposes kidnapping, or at least opposes killing POWs, that's what kidnapping during war is a POW. This article cites non of these references. Also all (at least the ones I'm familiar with) religions have similar views on kidnappings [Torah for Today: What the Torah says about kidnapping See [[Bible]] Judges 21: 10- 24. This hate-mongering and demonizing of one people must stop. My objection is slightly broader than those above. I think WP:POV is a big issue here. Although I agree OP and others, i think what's wrong with article goes beyond just WP:SYNTH 70.63.179.18 (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC) — 70.63.179.18 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep What Sammy and Claimsworth said. But also note the extent to which Islamist kidnappings are a geopolitical strategy.  Islamist kidnappers in the Philippines and in Algeria have taken hostages from countries involved in the war against the self-declared Islamist caliphate in Syria/Iraq, threatening to kill them unless  the governments of France and Germany withdraw their military fromm fighting ISIS.  This is not like crominal kidnapping for money.  I am trying to encounter the arguments of those who are moving to delete.  But this seems like a coherent category not only to me, but to the world's major news organizations {The Guardian]], Wall Street Journal, New York Times.  It is a specific funding and political strategy pursued by self-proclaimed Islamist fighters whose shared strategy of kidnapping for financial/political reasons makes this a topic/category.ShulMaven (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete to rename (sounds strange, no :?) Kidnapping in terrorism so that we can merge information from the kidnappings of ETA and the Red Brigades mentioned above. This way we will have respected a basic pillar of Wikipedia not making a selective approach on kidnapping as a terrorist tool, method and tactic. Am I clear enough? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions70.63.179.18 (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep lots of sources. though, in general of course removal of all connection between islam and anything negative is best. maybe disperse the paragraphs of examples among parts of kidnapping related articles. Cramyourspam (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Original POV essay. Pretty straightforward call, this is a textbook case of prohibited "Original Research" as it applies to history — a novel synthesized argument. Carrite (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is just a sequence of Wiki-cliches stuck together. I can't even figure out what your point is. Claimsworth (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is a pretty specific critique that I hope the closing administrator will appreciate. In short: Wikipedia is not the place for novel scientific or historical research. Encyclopedic topics should be reflected by presence in the scholarly literature somewhere. This is not. Nor is Wikipedia the place for political axe-grinding. This is a thinly disguised anti-"Islamist" screed, in my estimation. So it's a failure on two counts. Carrite (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Now you're point is clear. So you don't like material that connects Islam to anything negative. Or you do actually think that no scholar has every connected Islamism and kidnapping? There are certianly plenty of hits for Islamism and kidnapping on JSTOR. There is no reason to restrict ourelves to scholarly writing. There is huge category of material that connects Islamists to terrorism, kidnapping, and so forth. That includes books, news stories, and other RS. You want to dismiss it all as "axe-grinding." But it certainly isn't original research. Claimsworth (talk) 07:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep as being much better sourced than I expected. That having been said, I'm not happy with the title.  I would not be against a merge per  Bearian (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The nom is a sock.Articles are normally only deleted for problems with content if they are unsalvageable issues of original research and neutrality problems can be solved through regular editing .The subject is notable now whether one has a separate article for Kidnapping in Islamism or merge this with a new general article of Kidnapping in Terrorism is not a reason for deletion.If there is issue with the title that can be subject to a requested move.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment FARC the Colombian group has done a lot of kidnapping including the Colombian presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt that is documented in List of political hostages held by FARC and in Kidnappings in Colombia and similarly International child abduction in Mexico are are separate articles. Kidnapping in the United States even Kidnapping in Canada are separate articles .This is  localized and hence have country specific articles but the groups like al-Qaeda and the ISIS, are regional to an extent global and are classified by religion  .Please Political correctness is not a reason for deletion Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, if you're going the PC route: islamophobia is not a reason for keeping. FARC is an organization--one single one. The US and Canada are, as you well know, individual countries. So is Mexico. There is no way in which "islamists" is a clearly defined entity on which you can pin a particular tactic. Carrite, and now as well, indicate quite clearly that the problem is not just the content: it is the very topic, as exemplified by its unacceptable title. The moment you rework the title to make it fit the content, you'll end up with something like Kidnappings done by groups who may or may not have subscribed, publicly or not, to some form of what some people call "Islamism", a highly controversial term used here only to function as a catchall for a wide variety of different events, done by different people/organizations in different places, for different reasons. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So Carrite does your thinking for you. That explains a lot. Be honest. If these Islamist groups weren't really terrorists and kidnappers, would you be defending them? Are radical socialists really this sensitive to religious criticism? Claimsworth (talk) 07:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's all of us please refrain from politicizing this. --Sammy1339 (talk) 07:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Sammy1339. Actually, this isn't so much politicizing as playing the man, not the ball. Claimsworth, your suggestion is too revolting to warrant a response, and that Carrite does my thinking for me is prima facie ridiculous. You couldn't have done a better job discrediting yourself if you tried. That's all. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Kidnappings in Colombia article discusses kidnappings not only by FARC but also by M-19, ELN, drug cartels, and others, which form a coherent phenomenon that would make it unreasonable to discuss them all separately. This is not an argument based on WP:OTHERSTUFF, but your assertion that there is no precedent for discussing kidnappings by loosely related groups is incorrect. The issue is nothing to do with controversy or "islamophobia," it is that there has been widespread media and scholarly attention to the use of kidnapping as a tactic by islamist groups. If you find the term offensive, perhaps you would prefer "political islam," which however is just a synonym. The ideology itself has been the subject of thousands of books, academic papers, and other sources, and is indisputably shared by groups such as Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, and ISIL. It's not reasonable to delete the article on the grounds that the term might be controversial in some circles. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. As says, this is OR in its combining two words as if they are somehow essentially connected. I mean, considering that "islamists" have a tendency to use AK-47s, and that many appear to have beards, I see two more articles ready for creation if this one stands. So what if it's a frequently used tactic for them? Lots of other entities do it as well, and that they kidnap people from "enemy countries"--well, that makes sense, since you wouldn't kidnap your friends. I wouldn't, at least. What's more, I object to this lumping together of organizations under what is essentially a non-neutral, POVish, vague term, as our article (fortunately) points out: Islamism. To call one particular terrorist or group "Islamist" is one thing, but to throw them all together and say that they have this in common, that's quite another. Drmies (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not OR, because independent sources have identified these groups as islamist and drawn a connection between the movement and the tactic of kidnapping. Contrary to what you suggest, the article does not assert that all islamist groups have this in common, only that it is a significant occurrence among islamist groups. As for the AK-47's and beards, I think the fallacy of this argument is that it conflates a culturally, politically, and otherwise significant phenomenon, the use of kidnapping by these groups, with superficial and irrelevant facts. But if there were enough significant coverage and discussion of these facts for an article, then yes, they would deserve one - and in point of fact the iconic use of AK rifles by jihadists is discussed in the article AK-47. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as original research by synthesis. While a series of events are documented by reliable sources the topic itself is not covered by reliable sources. The keep arguments need to address this policy issue. Chillum 00:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well there is the book mentioned above. There are also innumerable news articles that discuss the phenomenon in the context of particular events, as pointed out by Claimsworth above. One of many examples of news articles connecting islamism with the particular style of kidnapping associated with the movement is the beginning of | this article: "The sickening scene is now all too familiar: a radical Islamist, dressed in black, standing above a Western prisoner, who is kneeling with his hands behind his back." --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable topic plenty of scholarly litarature exist.--Shrike (talk) 09:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per Chillum and Drmies Hafspajen (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable subject. good sourcing, covers the subject at length.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete POV. Starting with the title: the article is not about Islam in general, but about a few contemporary groups of Islamic militants. What seems to be intended by using the word "Islamism" is an attempt to make a negative implication about Islam as a religion without actually saying so. Second, nothing here is unique to Islamic groups: kidnapping by terrorists is a fairly common part of their general practice. It's the result of the logic of terrorism, not the logic of religion.  DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone would object to an article entitled "tornados in Nebraska." Such a title would not imply that tornados were uniquely connected to Nebraska. Claimsworth (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - You mean Tornados in Nebraska. If there are Tornados also in, say, Nevada or Florida but we make an article only covering Tornados in Nebraska and leave out the others, our readers would not think that Wikipedia is an objective, impartial, complete source of information. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think they would think that those articles still need to be written. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ... and wait. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.