Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrorist (slur)


 * 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. We seem to be arriving at consensus that this shouldn't be covered as a separate article. There are some proposals to redirect; no consensus for that here but that may emerge from subsequent discussions.  Sandstein  11:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Terrorist (slur)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Looks as an essay or original research with nothing showing notability beyond this article Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge Non notable Article. Needs context. Colin Shui (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources are high-quality, and are all verifiable. Hawaan12 (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * delete It doesn't even bother to cite the central claim, and I'm doubtful that it is true. Mangoe (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The nomination rationale doesn't seem to quite reflect the state of the article, which is referenced. And the first book cite does seem to pertain to the central claim, though without hyperlinks we really can't tell what says what. This may be mostly WP:SYNTH -- or perhaps not. This short stub has no less than four references. However, one is to a bulletin to staff at Cornell and another, an "Equal Employment Opportunity Compliance Guide" of uncertain notability. Sand nigger, one of two analogous slurs mentioned, is a redirect to List of ethnic slurs and that is what we could here. Delete or redirect until such time (if ever) that a much more solid case is established that this is a bona fide notable topic. Userfy if requested. And I would encourage Hawaan12 to improve referencing with Gnews and Gbooks results with hypertext links so editors can see what is being offered as support for the article's statements.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The article creator has added several references with links. The second, The TV Terrorist: Media Images of Middle Easterners, would most definitely be considered WP:RS. Unlike Mangoe, above, I'm not "doubtful that it is true." The notion that a great many Arabic or 'foreign'-looking people aren't being mislabeled as terrorists at one time or another is willfully ignorant, at best, it seems to me. The question is the truthfulness of the assertions -- which the new refs do verify -- but their notability for the purposes of a standalone article. I'm certainly open to changing my mind on this one and will watch the Afd. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Change to neutral for now. I want to see where this is going. It deserves a full discussion and is not a obvious delete, from what I can see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Hawaan12 (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with Shawn in Montreal and I think the willful ignorance being displayed is in bad faith. 'Terrorist' is very frequently used as a pejorative term towards Arabs, particularly in Israel, where the term is applied to virtually all individuals of Arab ethnicity who commit a violent crime (this could be included in the article at some point). At first glance, the references in this article seem to be meet the guidelines for WP:RS, but I'll try to add more and fill out all of the publishing details when I get some free time since notability seems to be the only legitimate concern here. Elspamo4 (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't see this as unique to the Israel/Palestine conflict, btw. With the reaction to ISIS and Al Qaida attacks against the West, and now the Trump campaign, there may be references from Western sources, too. I don't know. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's unique to the conflict either, I was just throwing out the first example of widespread usage that came to mind after the USA (and I'm referring to usage by media outlets and high ranking officials). I'm not particularly versed in the commonalities of this term in other parts of the world. Here are some examples of what I mean:, , . The Guardian and the Economist articles contrast how the terms "terrorist" or "terror" are reserved for Palestinians or Arab Israelis since Israel's Defense Ministry has ruled that Jews cannot legally be considered terrorists. The quote by Mohammad Barakeh in The Guardian article is especially noteworthy as he claims that the government's designation of terrorists according to ethnicity is symptomatic of racism. Elspamo4 (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Still, it seems to me that this may be a case of WP:SYNTH, though. It seems to me you're conflating Israeli resistance to calling Jewish terrorists terrorists, and articles about Anti-Arabism or Islamophobia that mention of the fact that Arabs or Muslims maybe branded as terrorists or other derogatory things, beyond this one slur. Both Anti-Arabism and Islamophobia in the United States make mention of the terrorist slur and those articles -- and our readers -- might benefit from improvements to those articles, rather than maintaining this standalone article on a word, indeed, the misuse of a word, per WP:NAD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I can see your point about my example being SYNTH and more about the misuse of the word. Despite that, there are still some quality references in the article, and I've also found some references through my own research, such as: - "This Article suggests that September 11 facilitated the consolidation of a new identity category that groups together persons who appear "Middle Eastern, Arab, or Muslim," whereby members of this group are identified as terrorists and disidentified as citizens.",   and . I don't think we would have to worry about the article being a mere dictionary entry since there are multiple dimensions to the usage of this term (e.g. origins, effects of 9/11 on its usage, usage by country, perpetuation in films). That being said, I would support the merging of this article with either Stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims in the United States or Anti-Arabism as a second choice. As a side note, if the article is kept, it might be better if it was renamed as a stereotype rather than a slur. Elspamo4 (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The Berkeley Law paper is very good. Yes, it's more about the stereotype than the word, I can see that. Stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims in the United States would be a good place to expand on this -- though not the only place, surely, as it's not just a U.S. phenomenon, especially following the migrant crisis and ISIS terrorist attacks in Europe. And then as you've pointed out, there 's may be a related, regionally distinct (as some might argue, others, not) usage in Israel. So maybe that's an argument for keeping and repurposing/renaming this article as summary of global stereotypes of Arabs/Muslims as terrorists. I've reverted to neutral: this does seem to me to be a notable topic and I'm fine with wherever it's explored. And it's unlikely to ever be in just a single article, anyway. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I live in Israel for 16 years and never heard someone called an Arab a terrorist as a slur. Taking into account 20% of Arab population with Arabs being members of parliament, serving in army and being withing every aspect of society, I think it's quite defamatory. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It is defamatory, towards Arabs, that's rather the point. The article and this Afd now have more than enough WP:RS to establish that this is a widely discussed issue, at the very least. Arguments like 'this never happens/this isn't true' aren't terribly persuasive, no matter how many times they get raised, here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * on the other hand, I did not mean to write "there is" rather than "there may be" usage in Israel. I'm not here to prejudge any of this -- I'm certainly no expert. So I have changed that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And on the other hand I never wrote "this never happens/this isn't true", but "I didn't hear it". I've looked thru most of the links and they either for a lawsuit, filed by individual or a personal opinions or even blogs. There is no any independent source, talking about such slur as a widespread one and I believe to call it slur it has to be widespread. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The Berkeley Law article (and others) refer to an Arab-as-terrorist "stereotype," which if so, goes beyond an individual author's belief. You know what, I'm going to change my !vote somewhat to  do not delete. I'm not sure what the fate of this should be, but this line of argument is rather meritless, imo. Sorry. There's now enough RS to establish that different published authors are talking about something that exists, regardless of what you saw or heard in your 16 years in Israel. And indeed, this isn't limited to Israel/Palestine. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * But it does so as an ethnic stereotype. To keep this page, we would need disscussions of this word ("terrorist" used as a slur, and specifically as an ethnic (not religious) slur.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry I'm late in responding but I don't see a huge difference in whether it's a "slur" or an "ethnic stereotype." It seems to me that's a quibble over terminology, not notability. Indeed, a rename that changes the disambiguation from "slur" to something more aligned with "stereotype" would seem to me to be a fine idea, if kept. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - good sourcing. per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:SYNTH. Sourcing is not sufficient to support an encyclopedia-worthy discussion of this word as an ethnic slur.  See my search on terrorist + ethnic slur (https://www.google.com/search?q=terrorist+++%22ethnic+slur%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8)  I dug a long way down that search without finding substantive discussions.  Sources in article do support ethnic stereotyping, but they are not formal or in-depth discussions of this word being used as an ethnic slur.  Sourcing on the page is largely from paltry sources, including blogs. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and/or Redirect to Islamophobia - WP:NOTDICTIONARY, WP:SYNTH, and WP:NEO issues. Why have an article about a word in an encyclopedia when we already have an article covering a very similar topic in Islamophobia? &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 17:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY, WP:SYNTH, and WP:NEO. Parsley Man (talk) 01:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree with Parsley Man. Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY, WP:SYNTH, and WP:NEO. Edison (talk) 19:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. It seems encyclopedic to me since google books search returns with keywords such as ethnic slur have thousand+ results in a detailed manner that goes beyond ordinary dictionary results. Hence the content seems expandable, even though I think the current crop of references are high quality, including academic, specialist and scholarly citations. 95.147.168.34 (talk) 07:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * — 95.147.168.34 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep - Per WP:GNG. Significant coverage exists on this article subject, and definitely passes WP:GNG. Sure, the article isn't perfect and could maybe use some love, but that's irrelevant to the AFD process; it's about identifying notability using external research. And this is a clear pass in my book.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   08:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ''I'm redacting my vote, as arguments for deletion per WP:SYN and WP:NEO are making me take a step back. I also believe that, looking back on the "sources" I found, they don't appear to meet WP:GNG. I'm going to perform another pass on this and make a decision.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   05:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Changed to Delete (see below).  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   05:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Oshwah can you please share some of the reliable sources you found discussing the use of "terrorist" as an insult or ethnic slur. thanks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * E.M.Gregory - I've changed my vote to delete after taking a second pass and re-evaluating my original reasons.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   05:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that these 2 comments miss the fact that sourcing would need to exist for use of the word "terrorist" as an an ethnic slur.  sources on ethnic slurs are as irrelevant as sources on the accusation that Middle Eastern ethnicity is conflated by some with terrorism.   We cannot keep an article about an ethnic slur unless we have evidence of extensive, secondary source discussions of the term being used as a slur.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - After taking time to perform a second pass, review policies and guidelines, and re-evaluate my original rationale for the input I originally made above, I have come to agree with others here that WP:NEO and WP:SYN both apply in this particular case. On top of that, WP:GNG is far from met - I couldn't find much at all that comes even close (I honestly don't know what I was thinking originally). Adding this vote to replace the first one (above) that I've now redacted.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   05:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Revisiting the sourcing The first 3 sources on the page are blogs. The 4th alleges that Middle easterners are stereotyped as terrorists, but not that they are called "terrorist." That is true of all the rest of the sources on the page, with the exception of sources 7, 8, 9, and 10 cite individual examples in which an individual was called, or alleged that he had been called, a "terrorist."  They do not prove that the occurrence of this usage is widespread (it may be, I don't know, but 4 instances and/or allegations cannot support an article.)  What we need to be able to keep this article, and what I have not found, are reliable sources - journalism or scholarship - discussing the use of this word as an ethnic slur.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of ethnic slurs where better-attested, reliably sourced anti-Muslin slurs including Towel head and Raghead already redirect.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of ethnic slurs; E.M.Gregory has it exactly right. Bishonen &#124; talk 22:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC).
 * Delete, No redirect Delete as synthesis. A few uses also does not make for notability.  A slur it may be, but it is not an "ethnic slur", and is not specific to any particular ethnicity. It has been applied to a variety of ethnicities, including some Irishmen. In the 1960s there was a meme (we didn't call them that back then) "Up against the wall, Yankee (Yanqui) terrorist!" --Bejnar (talk) 20:09, 8 April 2016 (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.