Talk:Sudden Jihad Syndrome

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Merge Discussion

But *GASP* don't you see how it's Liberal Bias to not have a dedicated article on this term that basically only one guy on Earth uses? Wikipedia deleted it, and it's something a conservative did, thus, we must have it! ;)

Okay, seriously speaking, as I've said in two places so far, get rid of it. Merge it, delete it, anything. The majority of sources inside the article doesn't even mention the term (so far, I've only seen that guy using it, and somebody in an editorial mentioned in passing that the guy used it), Original Research to the max, and the term is incredibly broad to the level of being useless and slightly offensive.

Conservative or not, we don't need a dedicated article about every new term somebody came up with. --Jenkins 15:01, 18 January 2008 (EST)

I agree with Jenkins' sentiment if not his tact. I think the article should be deleted, but I would be ok with it being merged and edited to comply with the Conservapedia:Guidelines. HelpJazz 15:11, 18 January 2008 (EST)
NOTE: The following comment was removed twice without explanation, and the only hint is a mysterious block note that reads "Try using better tact when talking about the people here". However, this post talks about Daniel Pipes, who, to the best of my knowledge, is not a CP editor. On the other hand, Skip accused me of liberal deceit in an edit comment and did not even receive a warning. Thus, I feel that this comment should stay. Removing discussion post is completely against the spirit of having a discussion. Or is there some connection between Pipes and CP that I'm not aware of? If he's some sort of Holy Man here, I'll back off, but until then, I will not censor myself just because he is a conservative. --Jenkins 22:31, 18 January 2008 (EST)
Sorry, but I already brought this up on Andy's talk page and the Examples of Bias talk page, and those posts were ignored. (You know how that feels...) However, I admit that I'm not wasting much tact on something that is effectively just racism (or at least an open invitation for it). Quoting our dear, "neoconservative academic" himself:
Individual Islamists may appear law-abiding and reasonable, but they are part of a totalitarian movement, and as such, all must be considered potential killers.
What's the next step then? Since they "must be considered potential killers", let's... oh, I dunno... stuff them all into prisons or a ghetto so they can't commit Sudden Jihad? Oh, and make them wear a special badge around their arm so we're warned... *whistles innocently*
Here, a bonus, from the same City Journal article:
The first and most straightforward thing is not to allow any more Islamists into the country. Each Islamist who enters the United States, whether as a visitor or an immigrant, is one more enemy on the home front. Officials need to scrutinize the speech, associations, and activities of potential visitors or immigrants for any signs of Islamist allegiances and keep out anyone they suspect of such ties.

(...) Resident Muslim aliens who reveal themselves to be Islamist should be immediately expelled from the country before they have a chance to act. Citizen Islamists will have to be watched very closely and without cease.

Yep, I can feel the love. Let the racial profiling begin! Let's monitor everybody for thoughtcrime Islamist trends! I'll accept being called a liberal for opposing this open hate. --Jenkins 15:37, 18 January 2008 (EST)
Sorry, Jenkins. When I said I didn't agree with your tact I meant it as a joke, but it didn't come out well. HelpJazz 23:07, 18 January 2008 (EST)
It's cool, really. :) I freely admit that it could have been more tactful, but when faced with the subject at hand, I don't really see the point. My gripe really isn't about any CP editor (Even though I still disagree that the deletion was bias, but that's not really connected to our article.), but rather about that Pipes guy who seems to have no problem with incredibly sweeping statements like the above. --Jenkins 23:15, 18 January 2008 (EST)

I disagree strongly with merging this. I think Pipes is wrong. I don't know if he is being racist. But none of that is relevant. The term isn't used only by Daniel Pipes. Google shows over 25,000 hits for it. [1] . The term has been used in other notable places such as a column in the Washington times. [1]. And the connection of all these terrorists to SJS has been made by other sources also[2]. SkipJohnson 15:51, 18 January 2008 (EST)

I still think it should be its own article. But that might make more sense than merging with Pipes. SkipJohnson 18:40, 18 January 2008 (EST)

If we merge this with Jihad, then we have to edit other articles on Cpedia (those on liberal biases) that use the lack of a SJS article to prove bias in Wikipedia. I doubt we can make our case to the authors of those Cpedia pages, so we should keep this here.

I am a sysop and I am going to delete the merge request. I agree that this article should stand on its own. User:AddisonDM 6 January 2009

References

Since the quality of the references was partially what got this article removed from WP, here's the state of the references as the article stands now:

  1. http://www.nysun.com/article/29080 -- Editorial by Pipes. Threaded with racism, including quotes such as "Individual Islamists may appear law-abiding and reasonable, but they are part of a totalitarian movement, and as such, all must be considered potential killers."
  2. http://www.city-journal.org/html/11_4_fighting_militant.html -- Editorial by Pipes. More racism.
  3. http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080102/NATION/203823370/1001 -- Article by Sara A. Carter. References some government report, though the report itself probably doesn't use the phrase SJS.
  4. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/10/24/muhammad.profile/index.html -- Article by unnamed author at CNN. Factual account of incident. (No mention of SJS.)
  5. http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/01/sprj.dcsp.malvo.trial/index.html -- Article by unnamed author at CNN. Factual account of incident. (No mention of SJS.)
  6. http://www.montanasnews.com/articles.php?mode=view&id=7227 -- Editorial by Gary Pratt. Gives a long list of Muslims who killed people, claiming that these are cases of SJS (though giving no evidence).
  7. http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/02-97/02-25-97/a05wn036.htm -- Article by AP writer Tom Hayes. Factual account of incident. (No mention of SJS).
  8. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={730A921C-1FED-4DCD-9949-D28A3390317D} -- Editorial by Pipes. Gives actual case and details of an allegid SJS case.
  9. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/17/AR2006061700725.html -- Article by Washington Post writer Hamil R. Harris. Gives factual account of incident (no mention of SJS).
  10. http://www.meforum.org/article/77 -- Very in-depth article by Uriel Heilman. Factual account of incident. (No mention of SJS.)
  11. http://www.thecourier.com/opinion/editoral/ar_ED_021607.asp -- Editorial by unnamed author. Basically just a recap of Pipes' frontpagemag article.

I personally think that the Pipes articles (1, 2, 8) are only good for discussing what Pipes defines as SJS. Article 3 is the only one which mentions SJS without also mentioning Pipes, but the source isn't all that useful. Articles (4, 5, 7, 9, 11) are fine for describing incincidents, but do not use or allude to the term SJS. Of the remaining editorials, 6 is not relevant (it is an editorial about SJS, and anybody can right an editorial about whatever they want), and 11 is only the same information as reference 8. HelpJazz 00:00, 19 January 2008 (EST)

I've found many other mentions by the mainstream media and bloggers

Examples not from Mr Pipes - [3] [4] [5]. And an article in the Conservative Voice - [6]. Even the liberal New York Times listed it as a prominent term of 2006 [7]. Is this enough to allow us to include it? SkipJohnson 16:24, 22 January 2008 (EST)

The others seem fair enough, but the SFGate reference directly attributes the phrase to Pipes. Reasonableperson 16:28, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Of course it attributes the phrase to Pipes. He coined it. SkipJohnson 16:31, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Proposal

I propose that Sulejman Talovic be removed from the list. This is in light of a new report on the Trolley Square Shooting which can be found here. This report clearly states that religion was not a motive. Hence, I suggest he be removed from the list. Absentismens 23:04, 30 January 2008 (EST) P.S. I would be glad to do this, I just felt it would be better to discuss first.

Technically, all we can say from the report is that we don't know if religion was or was not the motive. This isn't enough to say that religion definitely was not the motive, but it's enough in my book to remove the item. Anyone else? HelpJazz 23:34, 30 January 2008 (EST)
So would I be within bounds to remove said entry? Absentismens 14:44, 31 January 2008 (EST)
It's been 24 hours and nobody's disagreed. I'd say move it to the talk page. HelpJazz 23:28, 31 January 2008 (EST)
I guess I could have done it myself, since I'm always telling others to do that. I have removed the following line:
[[Sulejman Talovic]], a [[Bosnian]] Muslim, open fired in a [[Salt Lake City]] mall, killing five poeple before being shot dead by police.<ref> http://www.thecourier.com/opinion/editoral/ar_ED_021607.asp</ref><ref name=Motanna/>
for the reasons above. HelpJazz 23:30, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found
Personal tools