Difference between revisions of "Talk:Sudden Jihad Syndrome"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(References)
Line 25: Line 25:
 
*'''Merge''' with [[Jihad]]. Common sense solution. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 17:52, 18 January 2008 (EST)
 
*'''Merge''' with [[Jihad]]. Common sense solution. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 17:52, 18 January 2008 (EST)
 
: I still think it should be its own article. But that might make more sense than merging with Pipes. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 18:40, 18 January 2008 (EST)
 
: I still think it should be its own article. But that might make more sense than merging with Pipes. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 18:40, 18 January 2008 (EST)
 +
 +
== 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:
 +
#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."
 +
#http://www.city-journal.org/html/11_4_fighting_militant.html -- Editorial by Pipes. More racism.
 +
#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.
 +
#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.)
 +
#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.)
 +
#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).
 +
#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).
 +
#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.
 +
#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).
 +
#http://www.meforum.org/article/77 -- Very in-depth article by Uriel Heilman. Factual account of incident. (No mention of SJS.)
 +
#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. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:00, 19 January 2008 (EST)

Revision as of 05:00, January 19, 2008

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)

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)
  1. ↑ http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080102/NATION/203823370/1001
Retrieved from "https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome&oldid=375334"