Talk:Religion of Peace

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 Jun 2005. The result of the discussion was Delete.

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 May 2006. The result of the discussion was No consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on May 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

Contents 1 Previous deletion 2 Why is the article still here? 3 Original research 4 Bush quotes, from White House website 5 Raphaels latest edits 6 pic 7 Verifiability by reliable sources 8 WP:NOT a soapbox 9 Revert war over links to website TheReligionofPeace.com 10 Meaning of the word Islam 11 Development of sarcastic meaning 12 "Origin" section 13 Discussion on Revision 14 References 15 External links section 16 Many critics of Islam blame 911 on the doctrines and beliefs of Islam 17 reliable sources vs. WP:SPS 17.1 Response 17.1.1 Selection Criterias 18 Need to verify quote 19 Is there any reason "Religion of Peace" is capitalized in this article? 20 Sentence in question

[edit] Previous deletion

I just noticed the article was previously deleted. Most of those who voted for deletion had a problem with the phrase rather than merely the wikipedia article, though. The entry is longer than a paragraph, and mentions two interpretations, so it's serious enough not to merge with List of ethnic slurs. Andjam 01:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Now I'm curious as to what the previous version looked like. Where might I find it? Rearden Metal 07:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why is the article still here?

The article already had an AfD with the result Delete, so please remove it!! Raphael1 02:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

That version got deleted. If you think this version of the article should be deleted (creation of a previously deleted article doesn't always qualify), I'd appreciate it if you gave the rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religion of Peace (second nomination). Thanks, Andjam 04:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is it a "second nomination", if it's an AfD for a new version? Have the issues of the first AfD ("Non notable offensive slur", "POV attack", "Frequent use by one hatemongering group does not notability make", "POV, epithet, and unwarranted promo for LGF") been addressed? Raphael1 18:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

This pointless article must be deleted according to WP:NOT.Timothy Usher

Or else what? You know the drill - put it on AfD if you think it should be deleted. Andjam 07:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

Where are the previous sources for this article? Google searching on Religion of Peace is returning over 2,000,000 hits. That seems like an awful lot of hits for the narrow view of this expression being written about in this article. Netscott 20:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Try "Religion of Peace" under a Google image search. You will find that the sarcastic meaning of Islam is the subject of almost every picture Mike Young 13:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bush quotes, from White House website

Why was the 'citation needed' tag added, regarding President Bush's public declarations of Islam as a religion of peace? The citation has been here all along, under external links: http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/ramadan/islam.html

Bush quotes from this official link:

" Islam, as practiced by the vast majority of people, is a peaceful religion, a religion that respects others."

"The Islam that we know is a faith devoted to the worship of one God, as revealed through The Holy Qur'an. It teaches the value and the importance of charity, mercy, and peace."

"I have assured His Majesty that our war is against evil, not against Islam. There are thousands of Muslims who proudly call themselves Americans, and they know what I know -- that the Muslim faith is based upon peace and love and compassion. The exact opposite of the teachings of the al Qaeda organization, which is based upon evil and hate and destruction."

"The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war." Rearden Metal 23:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

In none of those quotes does GWB use the phrase "religion of peace", so either we change the first sentence or we look for another source. Raphael1 00:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Raphaels latest edits

Raphael, why is this relevant in an article that discuss the neologism "Religion of Peace": "But an invitation to Rev. Franklin Graham, who dubbed Islam "very evil and wicked" in 2001, to lead a Good Friday service at the Pentagon stirred controversy."? And why do you believe that it says something that is not POV or OR about GWB's "credibility"? -- Karl Meier 21:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The article discusses a neologism, which has allegedly been introduced by American politicians, most notably President George W. Bush. Therefore Rev. Franklin Grahams views on Islam, who allegedly is a friend of George W. Bush and has a close relationship to the Bush family[1], are certainly relevant to this article. GWB as president of the United States certainly has a say in who gets invitated to the Pentagon and whos governmental funded relief organization is permitted to go to Iraq. Raphael1 16:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

But an invitation to Rev. Franklin Graham, who dubbed Islam "very evil and wicked" in 2001, to lead a Good Friday service at the Pentagon stirred controversy. [2][3][4][5]

I'm sorry Raphael1 but I'm not seeing the pertinency to this article of this above text. Netscott 23:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well the core of this article is, that the Bush administration publicly referred to Islam as a peaceful religion. OTOH the Bush administration invites Rev. Graham a friend of GWB, who calles Islam a "very evil and wicked" religion, to the Pentagon and gives his relief organization Samaritan's Purse approval to operate in Iraq. I'd say, that this controversial fact is worth to get mentioned in the article. Raphael1 23:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's another interesting text. Raphael1 00:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC) It seems like Mr. Hull didn't forget the ultimate by using logistical, tactical and strategic prayers. Raphael1 00:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Raphael, this article is about the neologism "Religion of Peace", and it should discuss who has used it, for what purpose, if it has been criticized in any way and so on. The article should not discuss GWB or his administrations position on Islam in any such details. There is other articles where such discussions might be appropiate, but this is not one of them. -- Karl Meier 20:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Based on reading the discussion here and the article, I second Raphael's point. 24.211.192.250 22:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, right. -- Karl Meier 05:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Karl here. That statement should perhaps be made in the Rev's article instead. BhaiSaab ^talk 15:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Amazing... to actually see Karl Meier and BhaiSaab agree... that certainly means something... add my voice to those two in terms of this material not staying in this article. (→Netscott) 04:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Two months later, Raphael1 is still going strong trying to disrupt this article. In justifying his attempts to delete reference to the website, he has raised, in sequence, WP:SELFPUB, WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:RS. I might have gotten those out of order. It's pretty clear that he is just lobbing any objection that he can and isn't interested in debating anything on the merits, and that he's either incapable of or not interested in thinking about what these policies actually mean. I posted the following on his talk page yesterday:

Per my reversion - the reliability of the web site is not at issue, rather the fact that it exists, is notable, and uses the term "religion of peace" in a sarcastic manner. See Stormfront. That is an unreliable source and an offensive site but we link to it because it's the subject of the article. Do you understand? Alexwoods 23:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

He didn't respond directly but reverted and raised another WP:"fill in the blank" objection. I am getting pretty fed up with this and would be interested in mounting a general campaign to get him blocked. Does anyone know how to go about this? Alexwoods 12:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did response directly to you five times and I do know what the policies mean. If you cannot verify your claims, we have to remove them.--Raphael1 15:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] pic

I removed the pic since it is offensive and non-informative. --Striver 16:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

How is it non-informative? Andjam 21:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It does not inform of any issue that is related to the article. How is it informative?`--Striver 21:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - too true - It is non-informative as we already know these losers from other articles and it's offensive as one of the signs is unclear if it is "it's" or "its" (see the apostrophy in the middle bottom sign about Europe you will pay etc etc though you have to search the net to find the other examples where the same writing is used). I think thats what they mean. Ttiotsw 21:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It shows people marching to promote the views that critics criticize. Are you offended because it shows people with a different interpretation of Islam? KittyHawker 05:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No, not really, if those idiots enjoy proving to everyone that they are idiots, i would not care that much. What offends me is that wikipedia is presenting those idiots as representatives of my faith. That is offending. also, it is giving the idiots WP:NPOV#Undue weight --Striver 05:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. Maybe a caption that says, "Those who use the term ROP hold that the actions of these marchers are representative of Islam as a whole." But I guess the picture doesn't matter anyway. KittyHawker 06:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

- I think by saying

What offends me is that wikipedia is presenting those idiots as representatives of my faith

saying it is more YOUR religion than it is theirs kind of defeats your whole arguement Catintheoven 20:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiability by reliable sources

While much of the content of the article may be true, by and large it isn't possible to cite reliable sources on the topic. Rather than losing the article's history, how about redirecting to Little Green Footballs until reliable sources document the phrase? Andjam 12:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

If we don't find reliable sources, we ought to remove that information rather than adding unreliable sources like Little Green Footballs. Raphael1 14:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Little Green Footballs is more partisan rather than unreliable. The [6] link was also removed for an incorrect reason i.e. it was stated as "remove link (Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #2))" but that reason #2 i.e. "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources."...isn't true as the site focus is the irony (for a US-centric site don't expect too much quality for what passes as ironic) of juxtaposing the idea of a "Religion Of Peace" with news articles which contrast that term and thus is "a link to a page that is the subject of the article". The site http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ simply links to news articles which (glancing at a few) are from reliable/notable sources though some would be partisan. I fail to see how it misleads the reader by it's editorially biased selection of stories; what did you expect - Stories of fluffy bunnies and pixies ? The LGF site (another biased/islamophobic site) uses "RoP" e.g. "RoP Beheads Three School Girls" at [7] which links to [8] which again doesn't mislead but shows an example of the usage. Ttiotsw 07:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

LGF is a partisan website and therefore not appropriate. www.thereligionofpeace.com is not merely a collection of links but has its own factually inaccurate resp. unverifiable "content" as well. Therefore it fails WP:EL. The BBC link is appropriate as its not partisan (i.e. it doesn't fail to mention the 1000 deaths in that region in 2001 and 2002.) User:Andjam redirected the article to Little Green Footballs and I support that decision. Raphael1 22:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The WP:EL rule you use states that "# Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources." Please show where www.thereligionofpeace.com misleads the reader ?. So far Islam has shown itself to be no different to other religions from which it has been derived. I don't see where the disception lies on www.thereligionofpeace.com ?. Thats not to say that I agree with any commentary on www.thereligionofpeace.com as the editor there probably believes in the Christian god ! Talk about blind leading the blind. Ttiotsw 09:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I mean, that http://www.thereligionofpeace.com is a ***-****** site and has nothing to do on Wikipedia. Actually, I don't know US laws, but such a **** site would have severe problems in Germany (Volksverhetzung). -- Arne List 18:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I call what you have written groundless; can't see any mention of how the site relates to National Socialism or even indirectly say White Supremism or similar. I do not think the site would fail on the grounds of Volksverhetzung i.e. sedition. Freedom of speech is assured by Article 5 of the German Constitution. Superficially reading Section 130 of the StGB para(1).1 fails as the site doesn't ask for violence against Muslims (Muslims are the ones being violent and the site is highlighting this), para (1).2 is reversed too i.e. it is Muslims who are being shown to assault human dignity, para (2) is about the dissemination of the same; not applicable. Para (3) is about National Socialism; not relevant here. Most muslims state that the people who commit those crimes in the name of Islam are not representative of Muslims. Thus for the relevant sections of the German statues to really apply the muslim community would have to state that the actions of those criminals is representative of muslims. If Islamics stop doing crimes in the name of Allah then sites like www.thereligionofpeace.com wouldn't have any stories to link to; fucking obvious idea there now isn't it!.Ttiotsw 11:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This anonymous website insinuates, that the actions of listed terrorist attacks is representative of Muslims. By showing "The Real 2006 'Iraq Body Count'" it promotes war and tries to justify the killing of 650000 Iraqi civilians. Anyway, it doesn't really matter whether that site violates a german law. Fact is, that this site publishes the personal opinions of some anonymous individual and contains neither reliable nor verifiable scientific information. Therefore its inclusion violates WP:RS and WP:EL. Raphael1 15:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This denial of the real Iraqi body count does sound a bit like Bush when he didn't like the methodology used by the Lancet !. I do not see how this in any way supports the Iraq Civil war. Thats a red herring argument. The BBC and other newspaper also have editorial and personal comments that are seperate from their news content. Again you have failed to show why the site misleads as it links to reliable sources. Please identify where Wikipedia doesn't allow news aggregation sites. Ttiotsw 16:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"As a matter of fact, more American troops have been killed in the conflict than have civilians been killed by Americans."[9]?!?! Do you honestly believe that shit? Raphael1 19:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Link is down right now so can't verify that was said but truthfully Yes, most civilian reports (I'm not in the US so I do look at BBC and Reuters) seem to indicate they were killed through suicide bombers and sectarian violence in what is more or less a civil war. The US has killed people in high-profile collateral damage cases (and as a non-US person I feel the US military is a bit arrogant in its approach but unfortunately they have been driven on by US politicians who have been shown to be completely incompetant in managing this invansion) but you can't think that the bodies that pop up daily with signs of torture and execution-style bullet holes are American originated ?. Do you honestly believe that shit? No, this is basic Muslim killing Muslim violence. I thought you had some real evidence here of misdirecting readers but so far you haven't answered my question as to where the site misleads people. Ttiotsw 08:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that the "collateral" damage caused by the US military (i.e. air strikes on Bagdad etc.) sums up to less than 3000 civilians? Raphael1 19:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The link is back so I can read the entry. It looks OK and feels right. It states that "Updated count through November 1st, 2006 is 15,191 dead Iraqi civilians, of which 130 were killed collaterally in incidents involving Americans". Obviously we're only talking deaths here; cluster bombs have a very poor record of leaving UXO for children and others to get seriously injured with. So again it doesn't look like the site misleads. Where does it mislead ? You find out if what they say on this collateral damage is nonsense and then come back with counter evidence that shows where they have mislead people. Until then the site seems to not fail WP:EL for the grounds stated. If Muslims (e.g. Sunni) stopped killing Muslims (e.g. Shiia) then the American caused deaths would appear as a larger statistic in percentage terms. Now there is a thought on how to manipulate public opinion. Ttiotsw 04:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If you honestly believe, that only 130 Iraqi civilians have been killed by US forces since March 2001, I see no point in continuing this discussion. I can understand, that those figures "feel good", but unfortunately they completely lack realism. Raphael1 12:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is unfair to list this single figure drawn from deep inside an article somewhere in the website as "typical" of the accuracy of the figures on the religionofpeace.com. The main thrust of the website is a list of Islamist attacks, drawn from news reports. The aim of this is to show the frequency of Islamically motivated attacks. As far as I can tell these seems do not seem to exaggerated. I only think it is a pity they do not include other religiously motivated terrorist attacks, so a comparison can be made. Mike Young 07:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Nazis and their ilk love Islamists. Please don't make false accusations about the blog. Andjam 09:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

In Germany, the neo-nazis typically are anti-islamic. It is no "claim" but just a fact. -- Arne List 22:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Both of you are right. The World War 2 German Nazis allied themselves with the Islamists, present-day White Supremacy groups are very strongly anti-islamic. Mike Young 06:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I see no merit in a redirect to LGF. Derex 08:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Neither do I unless somone finds a RS V secondary source claiming that LGF created the neologism. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 23:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Would those of you who think that www.thereligionofpeace.com is an 'unreliable' source (which I suspect means: one that you don't agree with) be happy if I removed the reference to the number of terrorist attacks in the footnote area? I don't see what's unreliable about referring to the site itself, since a website titled "The Religion of Peace" is clearly within the purview of an article titled "The Religion of Peace". Alexwoods 20:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is not about this website, otherwise we could use it under WP:SELFPUB, if it would pass the list of requirements, but it doesn't. Therefore we can only mention this website together with reliable secondary sources discussing this website. Btw. 'unreliable' means, that it fails WP:RS because its an anonymous self-published website. --Raphael1 01:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The website is only anonymous because its authors fear attack by Islamist extremists. I find no problem with its list of incidents. Do you know of any incidents it has reported in its database that have not happened? But as has been mentioned before, that doesn't matter, all that matters is that is uses the term "the religion of peace" Mike Young 20:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I do have a problem with its list of incidents. It's misfiltered, putting the cart before the horse. Thus, I oppose using the website as a source for Wikipedia. However, its incident list is still useful if data on particular incidents fits into any particular Wikipedia article, because the incident list may be used to track down more reliable sources, such as newspaper reports.

However, the issue of this website's existence and notability is wholly different from the issue of its reliability. Nobody in his right mind would consider [10] a reliable source on, say, psychology -- yet, the website is clearly notable enough to be linked from Wikipedia's article on Scientology. Digwuren 21:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NOT a soapbox

I copied that from my talk-page to respond here.--Raphael1 11:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
What's up with [11]? Digwuren 09:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Nobody read/verified that Critical Inquiry article.
2. The external links (as being anonymous and having outrageous claims) fail WP:SOAP, WP:EL, WP:RS and WP:V.

--Raphael1 11:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of them are definitely well verified so no WP:V WP:RS problem. It is an external link to a relevant (if not neutral) site, so I would allow this. Mike Young 17:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I've posted this question on the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Religion_of_Peace and User:BenB4 agreed that those websites fail WP:RS. You are welcome to state your arguments there. --Raphael1 16:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The context of this request is that this source is quoted in this article as an example of a group that uses the words "religion of peace" in a sarcastic way. It definitely does that. The site is not quoted as a source of data for terrorist attacks (although googling any of the attacks reported usually gives gives a news report showing details of the attack). I would say quoting the site as an example of sarcastic use of "the religion of peace" is legit. Quoting the commentary from the site would fail WP:NPOV. Mike Young 05:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

i'm thinking the request for a reliable source is on the basis that this particular sentence ("For example, a website, which monitors terrorist attacks, uses the name TheReligionofPeace.com") is not significant or noteworthy without such, and in that i agree with Raphael1. if we don't have a secondary reliable source discussing this particular website- or the usage of the word in a sarcastic light in general- on what basis does this information become noteworthy? i am also having difficulty ascertaining the notability of this neologism in general (see WP:NEO). the external links do not appear to be appropriate either, all being of partisan flavour (from different standpoints), as well as promotional. ITAQALLAH 14:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

So why do you and Raphael1 delete the 2 Anti-Muslim websites, but leave the pro-Muslim one? Mike Young 17:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I just removed it. --Raphael1 17:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

i didn't remove any links as far as i can tell. ITAQALLAH 21:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

To see the popularity of the term, try a Google Image search on "religion of peace" Mike Young 17:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I never questioned the popularity of this phrase. It might be as popular as Never forget or Military presence none of which have a WP article. --Raphael1 17:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

i would opine that "popularity" isn't always the same thing as "notability", the latter being something which is decided by the presence/absence of third party reliable source coverage. upon reviewing the previous AfD, i do realise that some publications were provided as evidence of notability, but the actual extent of the coverage this term receives therein, and the repute of the publications themselves are both areas which need to be addressed more closely. ITAQALLAH 21:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert war over links to website TheReligionofPeace.com

There seems to be a revert war going on on this page, in particular if this page should link to TheReligionofPeace.com or Religion-of-Peace.com, with discussions going on in many places. Raphael1 has now reverted this page 14 times (but stated his reasons). Please can we summarise reasons for these specific links being here or not in the sections below to prevent this continuing: Mike Young 18:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

By a staggering co-incidence, 3 new anonymous users, using their first posts, have suddenly started reverting the page! Special:Contributions/69.12.171.35 Special:Contributions/78.32.27.65 and Special:Contributions/24.254.127.7 Mike Young 06:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It is likely that some blog has discussed the situation, and its readers took interest. Digwuren 09:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could believe that, but I can't. A load of new interest, perhaps, but all interest by first time users, who don't log on, but know all about Wikipedia policies? I smell sockpuppet! Sock puppet accounts usually show much greater familiarity with Wikipedia and its editing process than most newcomers. They are more likely to use edit summaries, immediately join in existing edit wars, or participate vocally in procedures like Articles for deletion or Requests for adminship as part of their first few edits. They are also more likely to be brand new or a single purpose account when looking at their contributions summary. Mike Young 23:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Guys any link that is not a reliable source, should be removed, per WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research"."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bless sins (talk • contribs) 2007-08-15

This is a special case, its the name of the website which coincides with the article title and subject matter as well and hence its relevant. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not a special case. It's useful to remember that URLs are not only sources; in the era of Internet, URLs may also be objects of study themselves. Reliability is an issue for URLs that refer to material being used as Wikipedia's sources. Reliability is not an issue when the URL being mentioned is an object of study, not a source of knowledge. In this case, it's obvious that the website is being used as such an object, and the primary question over the worth of its inclusion is is it notable?. It would seem that this particular website is, indeed, notable, which completes the reason for its mention.

OTOH, merely because we mention it is no reason to confer an unearned aura of reliability to it. It is also prudent to briefly analyse the issues surrounding the website. Digwuren 21:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

i don't believe there are special cases for sites that share the article title and general subject matter. we wouldn't use or http://www.muhammad.net on Muhammad, or http://www.islam.com / http://www.islaam.com on Islam, despite the corresponding title and general content. ITAQALLAH 00:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but your analogies are not relevant. Reinis^talk 20:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Their relevance is that they demonstrate the invalidity of the "special case" theory. But the reason for the website reference's inclusion does not rest on this theory, so the theory's invalidation does not mean the website should not be referred to. Digwuren 21:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that WP:EL is not relevant here, because we speak about references, not about external links. It means that we must apply WP:REF, WP:RELY and WP:V instead. And we do not use (and cannot use) the links in question as secondary sources (because they are not very reliable and it is prohibited to use questionable sources) but rather as primary sources, to prove that a the words "religion of peace(s)" are really used in an ironical sense in relation to Islam. Not because we approve their views, but because we wish to inform our readers where and how these words are used. WP:RELY allows to use even extremist sites as references in articles about themselves, so I believe that the references may stay here.--Ioannes Pragensis 08:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

1. The article is not about that website.
2. It is contentious.WP:SELFPUB
3. It involves claims about events not directly related to the subject.
4. There is reasonable doubt as to who wrote it. (it's anonymous)

--Raphael1 14:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The first example is sourced by a standard academic publication, therefore I reverted it (Raphael1, please do not remove properly sourced material without a good reason for it). The second example (Religion of Pieces) is really questionable, therefore I removed it as a whole at least until someone finds a better source for it.--Ioannes Pragensis 11:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you honestly calling the sentence "As of 15 June 2006, TheReligionofPeace.com, a right-wing website, counts 5,159 terrorist attacks worldwide since 9/11." in the google search results properly sourced material? If it were "TheReligionofPeace.com, uses the phrase RoP in a sarcastic manner to mock Islam", I'd think about it. But as long as we don't know anything about the context of that sentence, we cannot use it. --Raphael1 15:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's several hits from [www.thereligionofpeace.com] on Google Scholar to choose from. If you want to read a whole article try [12] Mike Young 23:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

1. The link you provided is not the one used as reference ("Mitchell, W. J. T.: Picturing Terror: Derrida's Autoimmunity").
2. In your article [www.thereligionofpeace.com] is listed in the Bibliography section, because it gets used in the article as an example for an "anti-Islam website". It doesn't say anything about RoP being used in a sarcastic manner. --Raphael1 10:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not any data on the site that is under dispute. It is the use on the site of the term "Religion of peace". As these are amoungst the top google hits of "The religion of peace", this justifies their use. Mike Young 16:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

WP is the #2 hit. And no, we don't link to sources because of their google ranking (as a #2 hit, we "create" or at least influence google ranks). If you find a reliable source stating that this website is using the phrase in a sarcastic meaning, we can include it. But I doubt, that any serious publication will reference an anonymous source. Including it without that reference violates WP:OR and WP:SOAP.--Raphael1 22:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

...I am of course editing honestly, Raphael1. And please read better: Mike Young does not say that the link is used for reference but that there are also other reasonable sources. Regarding your objections about "context" etc. - the cited sentence provides enough context itself, it is perfectly understandable even without the rest of the article. And it is also perfectly clear from it that the name thereligionofpeace is used ironically - the site writes about terrorist attacks and "terrorist attacks" are in the strongest possible opposition with "peace". And this is exactly the definition of irony: "All the different senses of irony revolve around the perceived notion of an incongruity, or a gap, between an understanding of reality, or expectation of a reality, and what actually happens." In this case, the gap between "peace" and deaths of victims of attacks. I am with you, Raphael1, if you demand reliable sources and exact wording, but I am against wikilawyering and violations of common sense.--Ioannes Pragensis 12:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Although I still consider it WP:OR, I consent to keep it in as long as we add, that it's an anonymous right-wing website and we don't present it's claimed activity ("to monitor terrorist attacks") as fact.--Raphael1 17:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously User:Mike Young doesn't agree to my compromise.--Raphael1 22:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you don't compromise by adding slanted terms and weasel words, and it's unreasonable for you to request it. Reinis^talk 23:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

What terms are slanted and which words are "weasel words"? It is anonymous [13], right-wing [14] and we have no reliable source, which confirms, that this source is actually monitoring terrorist attacks.--Raphael1 22:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Plan B: if policy shopping doesn't work, you go and add slanted and weasel terms.[15] Reinis^talk 17:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not a slant. And we can't preset it's claimed activity as a fact, because it is neither a reliable nor a verifiable website. --Raphael1 17:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Raphael1, I think you are completely missing the point here. The website is not of interest because of its content, but because of its name, the popular use of which is the subject of this article. The website could be pro-Islam, anti-Islam, or about the relationship of Islam to (for instance) reasonably-priced four-cylinder offroad vehicles like the Suzuki Samurai. and it would still be notable, because it's a well-known and frequently visited website, it uses the phrase "religion of peace", and it discusses Islam. I would go so far as to say it would even be notable if it were about Buddhism or Unitarianism or Falun Gong or some other religion - then we would want to say something like "the term is used to refer to other religions, for instance this website uses it and talks about Falun Gong." In this case, it's even more notable, in fact it's directly what the article is about, but you keep deleting it because you are pushing your pro-Islam point of view, and the website is anti-Islam, and you don't want an anti-Islam website mentioned on wikipedia. Right? Well I won't stand for it, on purely logical grounds. I am going to revert you again, because I'm not in violation of 3RR yet, but you are, and I think we should bring in an admin because you don't seem to grasp what the problem with your behavior is. It doesn't matter if you like the website or don't like it or disagree with it or think it's blasphemous or unreliable or POV or whatever. It is notable, and on point, and it stays. If you need this explained to you some more, feel free to ask questions here on the talk page, but it should be clear that if you revert this again you are risking a block. Alexwoods 01:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I support the crux of your argument. Digwuren 21:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I took out the reference to the counter (and the asinine quote), even though I don't really agree that there is anything wrong with putting the number up, because I am hopeful that this will end the revert war. We should all be able to live with the website reference the way it is now. Alexwoods 02:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

My view is that somebody doesn't want the reference in because having it in increases the Google ranking of the Page thereligionofpeace.com. That's the only explaination I can think of for reverts which have removed the link although not the name such as this. It may be the Google rank of the reference that really matters to the reverters. As a matter of interest, these revert wars are probably having exactly the opposite effect the reverters want. Thereligionofpeace.com seems well established at the top of Google, but every time you revert, you are creating a new web page inside Wikipedia's history files which the Google crawler finds, and I think the large number of pages deep inside Wikipedia that serve to increase the Google ranking of this page (unless Google has a unique way of indexing Wikipedia). The site that does drop down in popularity (bouncing around between about third and tenth place) is the pro-Islamic religionofpeace.com (without the "THE" at the front). I would very much like to link to this site as well, but as it fails in the same way as THEreligionofpeace.com it's been cut out.

Heavily edited Wikipedia pages tend to have higher Google ratings. Mike Young 12:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter whether I like that website or agree to its POV. What matters are WP policies such as WP:NOR. Currently there is no WP:RS supporting the claim, that

1. it uses the phrase "Religion of Peace" in a sarcastic manner
2. it monitors Islamist terrorist attacks

which is why I will remove it again.--Raphael1 17:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Look at the site, is do you really think is not using the term in an sarcastic manner? The site contains a list of terrorist attacks. Niether of these facts need to be proved. They are both obvious without having to consult sources. Mike Young 20:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what we think the website contains or what seems obvious to us. WP policy states, that we need reliable sources otherwise we are engaging in original research. If it is a notable, well-known and frequently visited website, surely there must be some reliable source writing about this website. I can imagine, that there is some source stating i.e., that this site is inciting hatred. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.. --Raphael1 21:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Where is the OR? The title of the article is "Religion of Peace". Thats the name of the website that we're refering to. Where's the problem? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Alex, why was the reference removed? Its not a valid reference? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the reference we didn't bother to read? --Raphael1 22:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

AGF. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Matt. As I said on your talk page, I removed the reference out of an assumption that what was offensive to Raphael1 was not the reference to the website per se, but the possibly contentious counter number (the number of terrorist attacks). In reviewing Raphael1's history, however, it's become clear that he is simply hostile to any criticism of Islam, or reference to criticism of Islam of any kind, anywhere. Obivously my attempt to appease him was unsuccessful, and I won't object if anyone adds the number back in. I don't think it's in any way necessary to embed the link to the site in a third-party quote, and I wouldn't go back to that. Alexwoods 15:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

How about reading what I actually write, instead of assuming what I might oppose? I do care about WP policies, which is the only reason for my reverts. The reason I changed the reference is simple: Our reference is not the description of a google search result (which would not count as reliable source), but an article called "Picturing Terror: Derrida's Autoimmunity" by W. J. T. Mitchell. --Raphael1 16:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Alex. Raphael1, the reference (originally put in here) counts the number of terrorist attacks that have occured up to a certain date and refers to the ROP website. What problem do you have with this reference? This is sourced information that you are repeatedly trying to remove. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning of the word Islam

The word Islam mean 'peace' in arabic, submissions mean 'isteslam' not Islam. if anyone need help with arabic please contact me. <<Smart_Viral 13:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)>>

Sorry, it means submission. Try saying that on the Islam page Mike Young 21:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

i know what i speak man :p , i said that before on article Islam. thanx. <<Smart_Viral 22:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)>>

It's on the 2nd line of the Islam page. I think you'll have difficulty changing that! Mike Young 23:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

>clarification:

>islam = salam = peace(noun) = give peace(verb).

>The Islam = asalam (sometimes we write it as Al-salam) = the peace, this word asalamis exist in the original text.

>thank you. <<Smart_Viral 23:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)>>

Ok after studying this i found 2 meanings of the word Islam:

1. literal meaning: peace or give peace as a verb.
2. implied meaning:submission and outward conforming with law of God <<Smart_Viral 01:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)>>

This discussion of the literal meaning of Islam should be on the main Islam page (or rather on its talk page). I am afraid I will have to revert. However, I agree with you that it is important that this page makes it clear that the "submission" means "submission of Muslims to God" rather than "submission of infidels to Muslims", so do not object to you inserting a clarification sentance. I think you have a good point that should be added to the article. You can argue that submission to Allah will bring an inner peace as a consequence, but not that the word Islam is a synonym for peace. Perhaps we can arrange a sentence we are both happy with. I certainly would not want to start another revert war. Mike Young 12:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks Mike Young,yes not a synonym, the word Islam (إسلام) is extremely related to the word Salam(سلام)(=peace) by its root. and the additional letter (إ) change the meaning to give peace (إسلام) which mean islam. but we can merge the 2 definitions into one as this "submission and outward conforming with law of God to make peace" see this dictionary. <<Smart_Viral 13:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)>>

That's better, but how about this :-

Islam means literally "submission" not "peace". "Submission" in this context is interpreted by Muslims as "submission to the will of Allah". Muslims say Islam is a religion of peace in that an inner feeling of peace follows from that submission. The words Islam (إسلام) and Peace (إسلام) are similar, but distinct, in Arabic, differing only by one letter and being derived from the same root.

I won't revert yet, I'll give you the opportunity to make the next change ! Mike Young 14:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

the word Isteslam means literally "submission" but Islam means Submission to Allah, the word 'Islam' never used before Islam. also change "Peace" to "give Peace" in ur definition. <<Smart_Viral 14:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)>>

submission to Allah must be more than one word (even if it is redundant). So what about this?

Islam means literally "submission" not "peace". "Submission" in this context means specifically "submission to the will of Allah". Muslims say Islam is a religion of peace because of the feeling of inner peace that follows from that submission. The words Islam (إسلام) and Peace (إسلام) are similar, but distinct, in Arabic, differing only by one letter and being derived from the same root. Mike Young 19:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Smart Viral, if you look at the pdf again you will see that istislam is directly related to aslama and Islam. the SLM root as a number of variants, a few of which directly connote peace. variant IV is the verb aslama which means to submit, of which "Islam" is its verbal noun (cf. Encyclopedia of Islam - which says it means "submission, total surrender (to God) — masdar of the IVth form of the root S L M."). Mike is also right, a lot of scholars do say Islam may also refer to peace in the sense of the tranquility felt in willfully submitting to God. ITAQALLAH 23:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"Submission to Allah" certainly does not have to be more than one word in any languages. Languages differ a lot. Try to translate the german word "Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft" to one english word. can you? --Raphael1 22:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

i think this definition:"submission and outward conforming with law of God and its derived from the same Arabic root of word Salam(peace)." will be clear, short, & meaningful for many people. <<Smart_Viral 01:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)>>

Pal, I'm a native Arabic speaker, and Islam doesn't mean peace. Salam does. Anyway, this article should be thoroughly revamped or, better yet, deleted ASAP. It clearly violates a bunch of Wiki guidelines. If you know how to initiate an AfD, I'll urge you to do so. Thanks. Lixy 02:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Islam does mean peace and it should be changed from waht it currently is, I am British and have some basic knowlledge of arabic, enough to know that salam means peace. This is then transformed into islam which means a state of peace or 'being at peace with oneself'. Just as muslim is derived from islam to mean 'one who is at peace'. It is not like English in this sense and wikipedians above me should not try to subject it to english gramatical styles. In English it would be the same as sufferer (note not the meaning of islam, just an example) transformed to suffering.Rob.G.P.A 13:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Note I am editing it to accomadate both peace and submission, the text at the moment (I dont know if it was reverted or what, or if there is further discussion at the moment) is kind of POV in the sense that it denies that islam can mean peace entirely, which it can. It also does not deal with the proposed change above which suggests changing islam to meaning submission to God, and simply leaves it as submission which makes it look somehow as though someone is trying to inferer here the ignorant and ridiculous notion that muslims are taking over the world, If that is waht someone here thinks wthen im sorry it is ridiculous, the muslims are having a hard enough time of taking back their own countries at the moment, I think world conquest has been deffered to a later date. Thus I am changing the article to accomodate what I have written, if you wish to revert please discuss, I dont know about citing this, though I do not think it is neccessary or possible to site arabic grammar in english. It would be the same as citing the meaning of every word in this sentence.Rob.G.P.A 13:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW Im dyslexic and type the above and my addition to the article quite fastly, if you spot any spelling errors or gramatical errors that I missed and want to correct please do. Also If you disagree with my edit please tell me what you disagree with if you are going to revert it before doing so.Rob.G.P.A 13:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Rob,

Thanks for your interest. There have been many discussions on this (please read above). It means "submission" as a verb. Who the subject or object of the verb is is not mentioned. It is not necessarily "submission to Allah" although that often implied. It is also not "submission of others to Islam". It is just submission. I feel reluctant to revert all your changes, as it may discourage you from editing Wikipedia. Please don't do this, as I feel your intentions were genuinely well meaning. Mike Young 14:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Development of sarcastic meaning

whats the aim of this title "Development of sarcastic meaning", move it to another article like Islam but not in "Religion of Peace"! <<Smart_Viral 17:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)>>

It's a sarcastic meaning of "The religion of peace" not a sarcastic meaning of "Islam" Mike Young 21:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The inclusion of this material is quite tenuous. There aren't any reliable sources provided. A paragraph was reinstated because the sources supposedly are anti-Islamic websites. So sources won't be added because they aren't reliable! What a joke. Recurring dreams 23:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This section is original research. A wikipedian cannot draw a conclusion from 1-2 quotes from right wingers. You have to quote a political observer who directly speaks about the "development of sarcastic meaning". `'Míkka 16:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Who is this "political observer" and why do we need him? And please notice that not everyone who criticizes Islam is automatically a "right-winger", whatever this term means. Beit Or 17:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

We heed him to quote him. I am srprized that such aa long-standing editor does not know basic rules of wikipedia. `'Míkka 17:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are you not satisifed with the existing sources? Beit Or 17:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC

We don't have sources that discuss and describe the term, we have sources that use the term. `'Míkka 18:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Míkka. Some of the most blatant original research I've seen in my time here (outside nonsense and vandalism). Originally a blog search was given as a source. Now there are no sources. If no sources are found, the section should be deleted. Recurring dreams 09:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Deleting the section would give the impression that the sincere meaning was the only meaning, which would be very untrue. It is the sarcastic use that dominates (do a google image search) and we cannot pretend it doesn't exist. Mike Young 12:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Your very reasoning shows why it's original research! You direct me to a google search, not a source. Find reliable sources and I'll reconsider my opinion. Recurring dreams 12:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Things like blog and google searches are acceptable, because what we are debating is the popularity of the term not the validity of the statements. They are often used in debates in Wikipedia (e.g. how to spell some name or the other) Mike Young 15:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No they are not. Wikipedia talk pages are exactly for validity of statements to be used in articles `'Míkka 16:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Tags will be added, just give me time. It is not fair to delete before others have had time to add the references. Mike Young 18:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I added a reference from non-blog source which describes some usage of "RoP" as being sarcastic. At the same time I really don't think that this issue (sarcasm) deserves much verbosity, not to say section. While I agree that this kind of sarcasm is widespread, there is really nothing substantial to say. Although I admit I may be mistaken. But again, we may expand the wikipedia article only the issue will get significant coverage (not merely frequent usage). `'Míkka 21:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, agree with Míkka. Good work on finding the reference. Recurring dreams 08:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference, it is in my rewrite, along with other non-blog references. I now have enough sources to be able to expand the thing again. I think it is important to mention the sarcastic use as it is the major use at the moment. Not mentioning the sarcastic meaning would violate WP:NPOV, by making the false assumption that the main use of the phrase is in the genuine manner. I now have the references. Mike Young 16:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that the reference to the counterpoint article on Ann Coulter you have added is extremely offensive to Republican Americans. They may try to revert it, if they do I will oppose. I agree wholeheartedly with your judgement that the reference should be in. We all know Wikipedia is not censored, that people should not remove stuff just because they may offend them or somebody else. Mike Young 16:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"the major use at the moment" it is your judgement. Inadmissible. `'Míkka 19:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Origin" section

the statement that the expression came from Bush is dubious and original research at least. We need a quotation about origin. `'Míkka 16:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Last time I checked Bush's statements were sourced. Beit Or 17:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying about Bush statements, I am talking abouit the origin of the expression. Talking about "sarcastic meaning", please refrain from sarcastic tone. While I am quite thick-skinned, it may easily inflame other your opponents, rtather than convince them tah you are right. `'Míkka 17:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

A statement like this probably doesn't originate form one single use of the term, but by continual use of the term or similar terms in in several places. President Bushe's comments were probably important in the development of the concept Mike Young 11:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sick of repeating: sources, please. Article talk page is for work on article, not chatting. All your talk is your opinion, which is useful only to know what you think, but which cannot be used in the article. `'Míkka 16:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Tags will be added, just give me time. It is not fair to delete before others have had time to add the references. Mike Young 18:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Young (talk • contribs)

OK. I will wait longer. However please keep in mind that this discussion drags for quite some time already and normally in wikipedia the rule is that any unsourced statements may be deleted after some time if the concern was not addressed. `'Míkka 18:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Where you can help is with this phrase that was deleted early on:

Muslims may also say that the act of surrendering to Allah can lead to a feeling of inner peace. So when Muslims talk of the "Religion of Peace" they may be referring to this feeling.

I should like to see this sentance back in. Can you find sources that support this statement?

It would be great if together we could help make this article better. This is much better than fighting revert wars with each other. Mike Young 19:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"Together" is the key word. I notices that several limes your versions delete several other valid phrases. Therefore this time I reverted your edits. Please respect work of other people. Not to say that your "sarcastic" section is again 80% original research. You have to understand that writing in blogs and in wikipedia are different things. `'Míkka 19:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on Revision

A user has requested discussion on the revision. The previous version is better; I'll also go about moving the OR from this revision. Recurring dreams 20:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the new version is great - the presentation of the contentious websites is especially neutral and thoughtful. Alexwoods 20:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, changes I made include:

• Getting rid of a paragraph about web searches; blatant original research
• Removing use of the TheReligionofPeace.com as a source; we are using it as an example of the usage of the term, like we are using the website religionofpeace.com.
• Removed see also section; Jihad doesn't have anything much to do with this pagel and Criticism of Islam is linked more than once in the body of the text.

Recurring dreams 20:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC) A couple more:

• Reworded a line to: Others rejected the idea[14][15] and many critics of Islam such as Ann Coulter began to ridicule this phrase, using it in sarcastic manner to mock an ideology they saw as overtly violent[4]. Originally the refs 14 and 15 followed "Critics of Islam". I don't think the Pope can be classified as that because he refused to use the term "Relgion of Peace"
• Cite needed added; I'll give time to find references.

Recurring dreams 20:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Recurring dreams - it is refreshing to see someone making such thoughtful changes to this article instead of just butchering it. Thank you for respecting Mike Young's hard work. Alexwoods 20:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is always better to discuss changes. Thanks. Recurring dreams 20:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Mike Young's hard work is driven by his agenda of insisting on prevalence of "sarcastic" meaning, which is his fale opinion. Wikipedia is not a place to respect bloggers who push their POV. I understand americans like to show their disrespect to their President, but he and his advisors are not complete idiots to run such large country, and surely some blogger cannot outweigh the opinion that not all muslim are cutthroats. Mukadderat 21:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand what your comment means. Please assume Mike's and my good faith. We have been having a discussion about the appropriate weight to give to the sarcastic use, which is indeed very common in the English-speaking world, and the form of this article, before you trashed it, reflected that discussion. Also I think it is an insult to Mike Young, Recurring dreams, me, and others who edit this article to keep scrapping the whole thing instead of making targeted changes that we can all discuss, as Recurring dreams did. Notice that I didn't revert any of his changes. I am going to change this back one more time - please, take the time to make discrete changes to the article that we can all talk about instead of undoing Mike and Recurring's work for the third time. Alexwoods 21:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No this is your turn to make "discrete changes" to prevent deletion of contribution of other people. As for insult to Mike, I see nothing wrong for a blogger to present his POV. It is just wikipedia is not a place for this, and statement of the latter is hardly an insult. Mukadderat 22:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, for one, I don't think we should discuss the 7/7 attacks before the 9/11 attacks, since they happened later. Alexwoods 22:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, corrected. I was just blindfolded by an attempt to introduce certain sarcasm while hiding the text into footnote when this piece was moved down. Mukadderat

I am not going to revert Mukadderat's changes, because I don't want a 3RR block, but I want to go on record as saying that the article is now a mess compared to Mike Young's revision, and that I think Mukadderat's behavior has been unhelpful and disrespectful in the extreme. Alexwoods 22:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"compared to Mike Young's revision" You cannot be serious. Look this diff the major difference is section "Development of sarcastic meaning" which is Mike's major POV push. I replaced it by section "Controversy" (which is quite common section title in various heated articles). The rest are minor changes like replacing opinionated phrasing: often->sometimes, many->some, etc. The difference with last Alexwoods is even less. So the descriprion "is now a mess" in fact hits you.

And on the same record, the fact that your revert zeal was stopped only be a threat of being punished is hardly a demonstration of helpfulness and respect. My various edits (always quoted) were reverted at least 7 times in short time without minimal explanation. Mukadderat 23:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

I have seen several edit summaries like this: "I'll leave it in and give time to find references". This discussion is going for long time, and it is time to understand that you cannot just come in and write on delicate political topic qithout any support from reliable sources. It can be OK once or twice, but the continuous pattern of writing text without support of wikipedia:Verifiability rule shows critical misunderstanding how wikipedia is written. Mukadderat 22:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links section

Raphael1's edits to this page in the past have encouraged me to examine the highly watched Criticism of Islam page to see how things are done there. I have based my external links on the way they have done that section. I note that TheReligionOfPeace.com is linked there. Please get a {{Fact}} template on the link there, so we can have it on this one. I will remove the {{Fact}} templates if none appear in two weeks. After that if the link's on Criticism of Islam you can have it on this one. Mike Young 12:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Many critics of Islam blame 911 on the doctrines and beliefs of Islam

The reference for this statement is claiming the opposite: "Religion is the culprit, but no one dares say it. Instead, we have actually heard pleas for even more religion. [...] To the contrary, there have been concerted efforts to deny the religious roots of terrorism." --Raphael1 21:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

He is saying that, though politicians may not criticise Islam, he does, and goes on to do so. So let's quote "No, it was a religious belief that what they were doing would bring them special rewards in paradise that had motivated the terrorists to volunteer for those missions. Without that religious belief, there would probably have been no suicide missions" from the same passage" Mike Young 22:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if Farrell Till would be a notable(?) "critic of Islam", this reference would only source the claim, that one critic of Islam blames 911 on the doctrines and beliefs of Islam. --Raphael1 22:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You've got 4 references now. Please be aware that the more you request references the more links critical of Islam you will end up getting added to the article. As what you seem to want is an article that is sympathetic to Islam your edits are ending up having exactly the opposite effect you intend. Mike Young 16:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't intend an article sympathetic to Islam. I intend to apply WP:NPOV and WP:V. If your sources don't match WP:RS they will be removed. I'd reckon the pentagon story should to go in the article as well.--Raphael1 18:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Then plese feel free to add it. It would be great to see you adding stuff and improving articles instead of getting involved in revert wars. I keenly await your first non-Islamic POV edit. Mike Young 20:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding more anti-islamic POV to the article wouldn't help towards WP:NPOV. --Raphael1 23:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't forget that the article is about a particular expression, not about general criticism of islam, terrorism, islamophobis, etc. There are corresponding large article and there is no reaso to fork their content here. In other words, if a reference does not use the expression, then its reference is probably unnecessary here. Mukadderat 00:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree that it is not a general criticism of Islam, and was not intended to be. It should discusses the term "Religion of Peace", why people use the term, and why people criticise the term. A wordy discussion on if Islam is actually a religion of peace is probably not suitable either, but we should allow links to pages discussing this. Most of the links you may be worried about would not be there if Raphael1 had not insisted on it. Mike Young 20:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reliable sources vs. WP:SPS

Since Mike Young claimed there are no self-published sources left, I decided to list questionable sources.

1. http://www.asiasociety.org/speeches/mahathir.html is a primary source
2. http://www.prophetofdoom.net/Jalal_Abualrub_Craig_Winn_Debate.Islam fails WP:RS as it is WP:SPS
3. http://www.counterpunch.org/siddiqi06052003.html is biased (left-wing) and questionable as well
4. http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/2001/6/016front.html has an atheism bias
5. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={F5505727-0D41-432E-AE50-AF20B242B4B2} is biased (right-wing)
6. http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2007/2007-0.html jewish bias? WP:SPS
7. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52184 right-wing bias
8. http://users.tpg.com.au/dezhen/jihad_and_the_modern_world.html WP:SPS
9. http://web.archive.org/web/20061017053855/http://www.islamqa.com/index.php?ref=43087&ln=eng an outdated version of an obviously biased article on islamqa.com (Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid)
10. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2072587.ece| does not exist
11. http://www.religioustolerance.org/reac_ter18a.htm Bruce A. Robinson has degree in Engineering Physics but is no expert on religion
12. http://web.archive.org/web/20051220012306/http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45449 an outdated article of a conservative news site

Even if we accept biased sources such as www.counterpunch.org, www.frontpagemag.com and www.worldnetdaily.com (here are WP discussions about their reliability [16][17] ) there are enough problems to work on. --Raphael1 12:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

Thanks for your concerns and interest, I hope I can address them below.

1) Linking to a web.archive source does not make it automatically outdated (and I presume you are implying therefore unreliable). I link to the internet archive because the link is likely to stay, whereas web pages come and go.

2) Claims that something has a Conservative, Atheist, Jewish, Right Wing, Left Wing, or just generally "obviously biased" is a POV assertion. Please remember that you cannot reject a link because it has a non-Islamic POV. (I note you never raise a problem with a link having a pro-Islamic POV). After all, that's what this section of the article is about, stating criticism of the term. In fact I think this is a strength of the article, as it shows that the criticism of the term "Religion of Peace" does not just come from one quarter. Perhaps we need to add some quotes from a Hindu perspective or a Sub Saharan African perspective or a Russian perspective or a Chinese Communist perspective just to round things off.

3) Bruce A. Robinson has degree in Engineering Physics but is no expert on religion this is an ad hominum attack. And anyway all this man was doing was quoting a study. It's the study he quoted you should criticise, not the messenger. I've changed the reference. ^[1]

4) http://users.tpg.com.au/dezhen/jihad_and_the_modern_world.html was published in the Journal of Islamic Law and Culture, so is not an SPS.

5) Prophet of doom is a very thoroughly researched site. It is linked to a published book, so is hardly a blog etc. so is technically not an SPS, any more than any other website is. You could argue about the truth of its anti-Islamic POV, but that is not the point, all that we are saying is that it uses the term "Relgion of Peace" in a critical way.

6) The Journal of Religion and Society is a peer reviewed journal so is not an SPS.

7) Broken link to The Times fixed, thanks for pointing that out.

Mike Young 13:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

ad 1) There might be valid reasons, why an article is no longer online. I.e. the publisher could have come to the conclusion, that the text is bad or incorrect.

ad 2) I agree, that we should display various POVs here. But that doesn't mean, we are obliged to publish every fringe extremist POV.

ad 3) It's not an ad hominem attack, it's my consideration whether he is a scholarly expert in that field. See WP:RS.

ad 4) How can you confirm, this article text is the unchanged original work?

ad 5) It is a self-published website advertising a self-published book by an entrepreneur who is no expert in the field.

ad 6) It is "peer reviewed" by the author Ronald A. Simkins himself, which I would consider self-published.

ad 7) Thanks for fixing the link.

--Raphael1 11:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

1) The articles are on line. Look them up. Just because something is in the archive doesn't make it untrue, which is what you are implying.

2) These views are held by large numbers of people, as I have mentioned before, a Google search (especially a picture search) on "Religion of Peace" will show that a majority of the useage of the term is in a critical manner. These are not "fringe" views in the sense of small minority views. There are hundreds of of millions of Atheists, tens of millions of Jews, hundreds of millions of Evangelical Christians, hundreds of millions of left-wing and hundreds of millions of right-wing people in the world. Who is the fringe?

3) The link is no longer to Bruce A Robinson

4) This indicates you have a philisophical problem with understanding what evidence means. You can always twist and twist things to support any pre-concieved idea. Your hypophesis that Dr. Sherman Jackson did not write an article called "Jihad and the Modern World" in the Journal of Islamic Law and Culture, Spring / Summer, 2002 is untenable (see Russel's teapot).

5) Writing such a detailed a book and researching it for many years makes him an expert. He's just come to conclusions you don't like.

6) Here is the peer review team for the JRS

Mike Young 14:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

ad 1) I did not want to imply, that any article, which is only available in the archive, is untrue. But being untrue (i.e. libellous material) is certainly a reason, why a publisher might choose to remove pages from its website.

ad 2) I don't think, that Ann Coulters views or the views of an anonymous Pentagon employee ("Islam is an ideological engine of war" resp. "Suicide bombers follow Quran") are held by a large number of people.

ad 3) Thanks for changing that.

ad 4) I don't say, that Dr. Sherman Jackson did not write an article called "Jihad and the Modern World". I just question whether the text we use as a reference is indeed the article called "Jihad and the Modern World" by Dr. Sherman Jackson. It does say so, but who can confirm it really is? Who is owning this website?

ad 5) Many people have written shitty books on subjects they know nothing about. Writing a book doesn't make you an expert. And even if he were an expert, we'd still have to follow WP:SPS.

ad 6) Ronald A. Simkins is the general editor. I don't think anyone in the editorial board would reject his works. Do you?

--Raphael1 14:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Selection Criterias

You dismiss Robinson because he only has an Engineering Physics degree, yet I'm curious who you would consider to be "a scholarly expert" on religion worthy enough of being referenced, seeing as you also dismiss Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid and Sayyid Qutb's Fiqh as "obviously biased". Any expert is going to be formulating and communicating an opinion, which can be called a bias. To dismiss commentators on the grounds that they don't have expertise and then dismiss experts on the grounds that they are formulating opinions (which, perhaps, you do not agree with) is likely contributing to the bias of the article rather than removing it.--clicketyclick_yaketyyak 07:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I wonder, why the only "scholarly experts" you want to include in this article are an islamist and a saudi wahhabist. I agree to include their opinions as long as their bias is stated. Though including more mainstream scholarly opinions would definitely improve the article. And yes, commentators, who have no expertise whatsoever, do not add value to this article. --Raphael1 12:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hahah, keep wondering. So far, all I've done is pare down the article by removing redundancy and disguised POV. I have not made any content judgments in my editing that could possibly be construed as desiring to only include certain perspectives. I am merely wondering why a certain notable perspective on a certain notable site has to be pre-approved by certain wikipedians here before it is mentioned on an article that is attempting to honestly present all notable corners' reactions to the term "Religion of Peace".

That said, I wish to draw your attention to Mahathir bin Mohamad, who, though not a scholarly expert and only a notable commentator, is still quoted in the article because his perspective is representative of the notable corner that maintains that Islam is a religion of peace. I may be mistaken, but I am not under the impression that he is either an Islamist or Muslim Unitarian. I also wish to draw your attention to the mufti Dalil Boubakeur, who is a scholarly expert, and is appropriately quoted in that capacity stating that Islam is a religion of peace. Again, I do not think he is either an Islamist or Muslim Unitarian, but do correct me if I am mistaken.

I agree with you that the article ought to be expanded to better account for the history of the term and the notable perspectives on it. But surely this is not accomplished if certain wikipedians have to approve or agree with perspectives before they are mentioned or quoted. One thing I am very curious about is when the term was first used. Do you know of any information on that? That info would be wonderful for expanding the article.--clicketyclick_yaketyyak 17:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The oldest quote we have is the Sayyid Qutb one which must predate his death in 1966. I have put this back in the article footnote, as the actual words are part of a very long webpage, and take some time to find. If it's not in the footnotes then it should be in the main articleMike Young (talk) 08:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

We certainly have to select the opinions we present in this article, as we certainly don't want to quote every lunatic bigot we can find on the internet. Notability certainly is one criteria and their expertise can/should be another one. --Raphael1 19:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Should we remove the quote by Mahathir bin Mohamad then? He is merely a notable Muslim politician.--clicketyclick_yaketyyak 20:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

O.K. lets remove that quote and Craig Winn's "Prophet of Doom", which is WP:SOAP anyway. --Raphael1 01:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it's the use of the term that we are talking about. If a notable person (such as Mahathir bin Mohamad, the Pope, or President Bush) says something, the fact that it is they that have spoken alters public opinion, and it is a notable event. Now there are many who think president Bush is a "lunatic bigot", there are also many who think the prophet Mohammed was a "lunatic bigot", and there are many who think Hitler was "lunatic bigot" so your opinion that someone is a "lunatic bigot" isn't a good criteria for not quoting somebody. What these people have in common is that they were notable and infulential. I think you may be agreeing by use of your qualification "on the internet" which implies obscurity. I would put it that a better critria is notabile and influential (almost a Tautology) rather than notable and an expert authority, because only the establishment can confer degrees. The only way to get to be an "expert authority" on Islam is to tow the party line. Now we don't remove any statements by anti-catholics because they don't have "Catholic Authority" so we shouldn't remove statements because they don't have "Islamic Authority".Mike Young (talk) 08:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I never meant to use the "lunatic bigot" attribute as an exclusion criteria.

I don't understand, why some kind of degree or expertise is a bad selection criteria. Yes, it will bring voices from the mainstream/"party line", which is IMHO a good thing. Why would you prefer to quote a layman on an article of - say - a catholic topic over a theologian? --Raphael1 22:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

      As Mike Young pointed out, President Bush is also merely a notable politician; Bush is not an expert on Islam and I don't think I "misunderestimate" him by saying that he is no scholar (!) But by cutting out quotes by the presidents of the US and Malaysia, don't you think that, besides turning it into a stub, I'd be hurting the article's goals, namely, to give readers an understanding of the impact that this label has had on worldwide opinion of Islam? If all were removed but scholarly opinions, we might have the meaning of the term covered, but certainly not its popularity and impact. Furthermore, it seems to me that this is a label that is used less by scholars and more by influential/notable personalities since the most usual justification of the term relies upon a misunderstanding of Arabic and its grammatical structure. If this observation is true, then it would make it unnecessarily hard on us to limit ourselves to scholars' opinions when trying to put together a decent article and it would misrepresent the sources from which the label came to be publicly known (I doubt your average American flips through a fiqh here, a tafsir there, and a few fatwas in their spare time.)

      To resolve this conundrum and still keep out nutjobs that you mentioned, Raphael1, I propose that, in addition to Notable and Influential, we add one more criterion: Credible. That doesn't mean that the person has to be correct; only, they have to either be credible in their assessment, or, they have to represent a commonly held (and therefore credible) view. For example, Tom Cruise is both notable and influential, but on the grounds of credibility alone (no need to appeal to Expertise), you can justify not including his notions when discussing postpartum depression (his assessment that it doesn't exist and psychology is a "pseudo-science" is not credible and his view is idiosyncratic.) To justify replacing Expertise with Credibility another way: Say I dismissed everything Raphael1 said like this: "So? You're not an admin so your opinion isn't important." Mike might jump in and pwn me like this: "That's an ad hominem attack and does nothing to discredit his argument." i.e. pointing out your position or level of authority does not touch on your credibility. So: 1) We in fact recognise that credibility is important, and 2) we in fact recognise that those without authority (of expertise or rank) can make credible arguments. Therefore: 1) Credibility ought to be a criterion in deciding who gets quoted, and 2) Expertise ought not be. One more proof: these three criteria provide a more satisfactory explanation for why it's okay to include an opinion poll when writing about an issue non-SOAPily: the participants' names may be obscure (no Notability) and they may not hold power (no Influence) and they may not have studied the issue (no Expertise), but taken together, these polled people constitute a commonly held view (yes Credibility).

      Long story short: the minimum requirement is Credibility, which is better when combined (and more easily established) with Notability and Influence. Whew! My response was verbose, but since you slogged through it, you might as well tell me what you think. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 21:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree Notability, Influence and Credibility are all good requirements for a selection. And I don't want to cut out Bush, because he is no expert on Islam. ;-) Still it would be interesting to have an expert voice. Wouldn't you want to quote a psychologist on postpartum depression? Anyway, let's get back to the article: How is Craig Winn notable? Why is he influential? credible? --Raphael1 22:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

"Wouldn't you want to quote a psychologist...?" Of course! It would be funny to quote no-name Joe Smith, even if he did have credibility by virtue of an accepted view, when you could quote a stuffy old doctor who speaks with a thick German accent instead. Credibility is the minimum, but when you can find it in combination with the others, it is better to use that person and inappropriate to use the former. Additionally, "postpartum depression" is a clinical term so it requires expert sources to explain it. But catch-phrases/labels/slogans don't usually have technical words so don't usually require an expert to explain or critique. I suppose it comes down to what type of person is using the phrase and is the phrase jargon or representative of a concept/idea/argument. But if you can find experts who talk about it, by all means, write it in!

As for Winn, I'm wary because he self-publishes, but this guy seems to be an intrepid amateur reporter, interviewing a bunch of big-name terrorist organisations (don't know how high up in the ranks his interviewees are though). He has a unique (since most reporters don't get those interviews) understanding of and source of info on Islamism, which is an influential ideology, from interviewing influential groups (even if he himself is not influential as a reporter/writer). Because he has such resources, it makes his works notable. As for credibility...his argument should be shown to be credible since I don't know if it's widely held among critics. His statement is vague, but there's some truth to it. My biggest issue with his quote is that, contrary to what it is supposed to reference, the term isn't being used sarcastically! clicketyclick_yaketyyak 00:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need to verify quote

The quote from Sam Harris' The End of Faith (currently note 11) contained typos probably (one hopes!) introduced by an editor. There is still a problem: Did Harris actually write "an explicitly religious phenomena"? The correct singular form is phenomenon (one phenomenon, two phenomena), although many writers get it wrong. Will someone with access to the book verify this? (Who is this Sam Harris guy anyway?) -- Rob C. alias Alarob 05:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Quote corrected, my bad. You can read about him on wikipedia here, and a web site at samharris.org. Try Googling "Sam Harris", you'll get mainly stuff about him. Mike Young 12:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is there any reason "Religion of Peace" is capitalized in this article?

It isn't in any of the quotes.P4k (talk) 05:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The sarcastic use seems to be "The Religion of Peace". Using the word "The" and capitalising empasises the sarcasm. Sincere users tend to use the term uncapitalised. Have corrected the article appropriately. Mike Young 14:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sentence in question

Critics of Islam have argued that the underlying cause and motivation of the September 11, 2001 attacks was the doctrines and beliefs of Islam, and that Islam itself is intrinsically violent, and was a major factor motivating the attacks.[8][9][10][11]

• "Islam itself is intrinsically violent."

This section is grammatically incorrect. "Itself" is a reflexive pronoun; reflexive pronouns are never used in standard written English with the verb "to be." To be is not a reflexive verb. Moreover, a Subject + Reflexive Pronoun + Verb construction is entirely informal in English; this isn't Spanish Wikipedia. Reflexive pronouns go after the verb, for future reference.

• "have argued that the underlying cause and motivation of..." "...and Islam was a major factor motivating the attacks."

This construction is redundant.

• Critics of Islam have argued...

This is a faulty generalization, or an "inductive fallacy." If I name a single critic of Islam that does not agree with the construction in question, then the sentence is false. For example, Irshad Manji, a Muslim feminist that does not necessarily believe Islam is intrinsically violent. She is still a critic. The word "some" must be added, otherwise the generalization is too broad.

I did not remove any citations or references; I simply reworded the sentence. The sentence is not "weaselly" just because I made the sentence more correct. Please do not make uncivil attacks. Moreover, the sentence subject is still going to have some degree of ambiguity regardless of whether or not the word "some" is added; the sentence is actually more exclusive now than it was before. -Rosywounds (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Been there before. "Some" implies a minority, "Most" a majority, "Critics" says nothing (it does not say "All critics" as you seem to imply). Mike Young (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. Some is interchangeable with the words "in part" and does not imply any number/relative size. Dictionary reference. Critics of Islam is more ambiguous than adding the word some. -Rosywounds (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to note, I realized you changed the sentence, and the current change is fine. -Rosywounds (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)