Talk:Suicide attack/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

NPOV

Clear Bias. BTW, a 'Shahid' is not a "Suicide bomber". Shahids have existed in Arabian Culture for Millenia's, suicide bombs have not. --Irishpunktom\^talk

Millennia (with a second n, btw) is already plural. If you don't know English stop commenting on an English encyclopedia.

Typo's happen.. you should learn to deal with it. --Irishpunktom\^talk

It's not a typo, it's an error. Big difference. And "typos" does not require an apostrophe, as it's plural and not possessive. You don't know what you're talking about and apparently don't even know how to talk.

Please get your facts right before criticising someone else's english. The apostrophe can indicate an abbreviation, e.g. as in don't (do not). Typo's is an abbreviation of "typographical errors".

The -n't morpheme in called an enclitic. There is no enlitic for the portion "grapical error" --Suprblah 08:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Explain. A Shahid is not a suicide bomber (nor is a fruit an orange), but suicide bombers are often considered shahids (as oranges are fruits). Also, if you want to place a disputed tag, please explain in detail. And finally, at Wikipedia, we traditionally use the description field (both for deleting whole sentences and for adding tags), instead of leaving it blank and marking edits as minor. I see from your history you've been told this before -- please keep it in mind. Mikeage 14:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

"Palestinian television has aired a number of music videos and announcements that promote eternal reward for children who seek "martyrdom"", this is probably true. However, none of the examples shown in the source given tell children to become Suicide Bombers, or even mention it. Muhammad Al Dura, being the only actual Shahid named, is the only example of a shahid that Palestinian Television is promoting to Children. Thus, rather than promoting Suicide Bombing, it is promoting the idea that Children who are killed in the conflict are Martyrs, and as such it is not relevent to this page, but rather the Shahid page. For what it's worth, Irish Television similarly promotes Child Martyrs to children, for example Kevin Barry. --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:48, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Irish rebel songs such as 'Kevin Barry' have been banned on Irish television since the early 1970's. Boru

Seeking martyrdom is an active process; the examples do not say "if you happen to get killed you will be a shaheed", but instead that they should seek out that state. Your apologetic for this is disingenuous. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The whole point of this practice is to encourage children, not to order them around. No, they do not say "go out and become a shahid." "Who will rid me of this meddlesome (or turbulent) priest?" was not a command either -- but it was clear enough in it's time. Tom, unless you can explain how these videos can be taken to be anything besides what Jayjg says, I fail to see how your argument is valid. I do, however, agree that it should be noted on the Shahid page as well. As Jayjg writes, seeking implies an active role in the process. Mikeage 18:05, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I resent you taking the "Jayjg Approach" (That is claiming edits and arguments you disagree with are not "valid").

Please avoid personal attacks. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Please do not edit my comments. If I put it on the same level as Jayjg's comment, it's because I was also responding to you, not to him. Furthermore, although I'm not in the mood to wikify it, No Personal atacks. Finally, the reason I said that I consider your argument invalid is that I did not think you made logically valid argument. Notice I'm attacking your argument, not you. Mikeage 10:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Err... I didn't edit your comments. --Irishpunktom\^talk

On your edit on 11:06, 30 May 2005, you'd added a colon to the beginning of my comments. If it was accidental, I apologize for accusing you. Mikeage 13:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the edit History, I see whatcha mean. Sorry about that, it wasn't intended. --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:20, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Secondly, to understand the Concept of Shahid in Palestine, you need to understand the concept of Shahid in the greater Arab, and indeed Muslim world. Altough from a Shia perspective this is worth reading. The Hadith of Bukhari states that the Muslim Prophet Muhammad said there are five types of Martyr (Shahid) - One who dies in a plague, one who dies of intestinal ailments, one who dies of drowning, one who dies under a collapsed building, and one who dies as a martyr in jihad. Another quoted hadee is “Whoever dies while defending his own possessions is a martyr; whoever dies defending his own person is a martyr; whoever dies guarding his own faith is a martyr; whoever dies fighting in order to defend his own family is also a martyr.” "Seeking Martyrdom", from the onset of Islam to the present day, has always meant a willingness to die for religion, Family, etc. Shahid is a Popular name for that reason. It does not mean to go out and inflict death upon yourself.. something which Islam dictates will leave you chocking on the ashes of the fires in Hell. --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:06, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Your original research is fascinating, but doesn't seem relevant to the properly referenced information in the article which shows the PA encouraging children to seek martyrdom. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Its hardly original Research, and is relelvent to the concept of Martyrdom in the Wider Islamic World. --Irishpunktom\^talk 08:24, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

O.K., you can think it's not original research if you want. In any event, this article isn't about "the concept of Martyrdom in the Wider Islamic World", so please stop removing the properly sourced and relevant material showing the P.A. encouraging children to become martyrs. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

If you want to talk about the Palestinian Media encouraging Shahid (Whats the First Pillar of Islam, transliterated?) then talk about it in the Shahid Article, bringing it up in the Suicide Bombing section is disingenuous. --Irishpunktom\^talk 08:20, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the article is talking about officialy Palestinian media inciting children to become martyrs; as such it belongs here. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is not the first time you have tried to remove this information Tom; back in March your complaint was about the specific wording:[1]. Are you going to keep trying out different reasons to remove the information until you find one that sticks? Jayjg^(talk) 15:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Colour me surprised, a personal and ignorant attack by Jayjg .

Tom, please refrain from personal attacks, and please sign your contributions. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

suicide bombing and/or terrorism

I know i'm stepping in here kind of late in a process, but it seems to me that this article on suicide bombing is sort of heavily mixed up with terrorism, presumably due to the comingling of both concepts in the present. But historically, suicide bombing of a civilian cafe has less in common with Kamikaze than it has with a remote detonated car bomb outside the cafe. Yes? No? So comments re the Palestinians' lack of other military alternatives belong here, but discussions of civilian targets are more of a terrorist matter. ?? Gzuckier 19:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There was a suggestion on the Talk: page a few months ago to separate out Suicide Bombing from Suicide Attack, which seemed to make sense at the time, but it never went anywhere. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:55, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

At least today, they are so intermixed that it would be pointless. With dozens of suicide bombings (more?) happening each week as terrorism, they can not be separated. Perhaps this should be described in the article. --Noitall 03:20, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

POV Edits

Although Yuber should be removed from Wiki as a harmful vandal, at SlimVirgin's request, his most recent POV edit will be discussed here. Here is Yuber's POV insertion and why it should be deleted:

1. However, while Palestinian television has aired a number of music videos and announcements that promote eternal reward for children who seek "martyrdom" [2], it has never encouraged children to become Suicide Bombers. --> The highlighted section was inserted here without a source and is simply Yuber's POV

2. The Islamic religion's texts, including the Hadith of Bukhari, also ancourages children to become shahid. The word shahid stems from the same root as Shahadah, meaning to bear witness or to testify, and is one of the Five Pillars of Islam, considered by Muslims to be the foundation, or base, of faith. Shahid literally translates as "Witness". -->This Section on Yuber's opinion regarding religion, also not sourced, is entirely irrelevant to anything in this article.

Please, can we quit wasting our time with Yuber? --Noitall 10:44, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

• They were both mine, and not Yuber's. Point one, you are asking to prove a negative, can't be done less I source every single edition of every palestinian programme ever made and braodcasr on (Would-Be)State TV. Point two, If you want to know more about the Source of the hadiths, and the roots of the word I suggest going to Shahadah and Shahid. Is there a Problem with using Wikipedia as a source? --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:52, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I appoligize Irishpunktom or I would not have done my own reactionary revert but would have discussed. Point 1 -- I think the 2nd statement fundamentally disagrees with the first. They can not both be correct. The first has a source. I understand that a person can not prove a negative, but since the first has a source, it seems the second is proven incorrect. Point 2 -- the issue is not whether it is correct or incorrect but whether a general statement about religion has anything to do with this page or with this point about what is being shown on TV. --Noitall 12:10, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'm rather struggling to see how the second point disproves the first. The first is that Palestinian TV has not encouraged children to become suicide bombers. The second explains that the Arabic word for "martyr" can also be understood as "witness" and this is what is urged on children. So the second seems to support the first. I'm not sure that the addition by Yuber is of more than very marginal use, but I think the general point is valid. Probably a bit too complex for those fed on rightwing blogs and American media though. Grace Note 13:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, the Source used uses the word Shahadah as if it means to become a martyr. We should highlight that Shahadah is the First of the Five Pillars of Islam and considered as the foundation of Islam, or as Yusuf Islam puts it, "the Base of faith". Example, the source says "Two 11 year old girls articulate their personal goal to Die for Allah - Shahada, explaining that “all Palestinian children” see Shahada because of its promised grand Afterlife, as more worthwhile than living." But, Shahada does not mean to die for Allah, it means to bear witness to Allah. It generally revolves around uttering a single phrase, Ashhadu Alla Ilaha Illa Allah Wa Ashhadu Anna Muhammad Rasulu Allah, or There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger. It's a big deal when kids recite the Shahadah in front of relatives and friends for the first time. And yes, it is believed that it leads to a great afterlife. Indeed, reciting this statement three times in front of witnesses is all that anyone need do to become a Muslim. The Flag of Saudi Arabia is green, with the Shahadah written on it. So, because of the source used, the second paragraph is needed to debunk the myths it attempts to create or perpetuate. --Irishpunktom\^talk 17:25, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Based on this talk discussion, I believe the following is a reasonable edit of the disputed passages:

Palestinian television has aired a number of music videos and announcements that promote eternal reward for children who seek "martyrdom" [3]. However, the meaning of such media promotions is disputed. Some Westerners tend to believe that the exhortion is the commonly used "martyrdom" associated motivating suicide bombers. This is backed up by pictures and television footage of children at play with play bombs strapped to them and with pictures of cheering children at the locations of some suicide bombing locations. Some islamic experts, however, believe that the term "martydom" has an innocent meaning. The term translates to Shahadah, the First of the Five Pillars of Islam and considered as the foundation of Islam, or as Yusuf Islam puts it, "the Base of faith." The Islamic religion's texts, including the Hadith of Bukhari, ancourages children to become shahid. The word shahid stems from the same root as Shahadah, meaning to bear witness or to testify. Therefore, according to this view, Shahid literally translates as "Witness" and has no connection to suicide bombing.

Perhaps this will serve accuracy and the middle ground between 2 POVs. --Noitall 22:04, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Come off it. Firstly, there is no source cited showing PATV "pictures and television footage of children at play with play bombs strapped to them and with pictures of cheering children at the locations of some suicide bombing locations". Secondly, Martydom is Martyrdom and has only one meaning, however, Shahadah is not, as the source suggests, "Death for Allah". And I don't need a link to prove that, because Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia and you can just Click on the link for Shahadah to find out what it means. The Source says that Shahadah means a "personal goal to Die for Allah" or "seek[ing] Death for Allah".. And thus we know the source is flatly wrong, it is either misinformed, Terrible translators or deliberately lying. I would rather it completely removed, but their is an apparent consensus for it to stay, however, the source is wrong, and the actual meaning of the word Shahadah in it's religious sense, considering the Source has lifted it from religious pieces, must be kept, otherwise Wikipedia is lying. --Irishpunktom\^talk 23:48, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Why don't we go right to the video and see? Or would that destroy the whitewash?

Yussra: "Of course Shahada is a good thing. We don’t want this world, we want the Afterlife. We benefit not from this life, but from the Afterlife... The children of Palestine have accepted the concept that this is Shahada, and that death by Shahada is very good. Every Palestinian child aged, say 12, says ’Oh Lord, I would like to become a Shahid." [PATV, June 9, 2002]

Doesn't look like it's this "Shahadah" you're referring to at all, looks DEFINITELY that they're going for "death by Shahada" e.g. suicide attacks.Enviroknot 00:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is because that is the gloss you have decided to put on it. Shahadah is the first pillar of Islam, there is no other meaning. Selective quotes taken from random sentences to prove a point do not disguise that. Look as I quote you, "Why don't we go... destroy.. every Palestinian Child". Either the creaters of this Website don't know what the Shahadah is, and honestly believe it means to die for Allah, which it does not, or they are deliberately lying because people like you, and people who have an ignorance of Islam will believe them. --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:17, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I am not certain we are going to satisfy someone with a particular POV. You can not ignore reality. If it helps the article to insert the photographs, then we can do that. As for Enviroknot's transcription, well that about says it all. The proposal can, of course, be modified. But I think it is the most balanced approach. --Noitall 02:05, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I made a good proposal that balanced both sides. If you want a source, I think a picture says a thousand words. We can select one or more pictures here [4].

--Noitall 04:37, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Which, do tell, of those comes from the Official Televeision Network of the PAlestinian Authority ?--Irishpunktom\^talk 09:17, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Based on the information provided and the sources used, this is what the edit should be:

Palestinian television has aired a number of music videos and announcements that promote eternal reward for children who seek "martyrdom" [5]. However, the meaning of such media promotions is disputed. Some Westerners tend to believe that the exhortion is the commonly used "martyrdom" associated motivating suicide bombers. Western media including the Associated Press has aired many pictures of children at play in public in Palestine with play bombs and real guns with the support of adult people and groups Westerners identify as terrorists[6]. In addition, the context of state television appears to back up this view:

"Of course Shahada is a good thing. We don’t want this world, we want the Afterlife. We benefit not from this life, but from the Afterlife... The children of Palestine have accepted the concept that this is Shahada, and that death by Shahada is very good. Every Palestinian child aged, say 12, says ’Oh Lord, I would like to become a Shahid." [PATV, June 9, 2002]

Some islamic experts, however, believe that the term "martydom" has an innocent meaning. The term translates to Shahadah, the First of the Five Pillars of Islam and considered as the foundation of Islam, or as Yusuf Islam puts it, "the Base of faith." The Islamic religion's texts, including the Hadith of Bukhari, ancourages children to become shahid. The word shahid stems from the same root as Shahadah, meaning to bear witness or to testify. Therefore, according to this view, Shahid literally translates as "Witness" and has no connection to suicide bombing.

--Noitall 13:08, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

• • Where are you getting the word "Martyrdom" from ? Where do you have a source that quotes Martyrdom ? The Shahadah is not Martyrdom. --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:20, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Irishpunktom, I appreciate your advocacy and think your questions make it better, but there a lot of sources and commonly held beliefs here, see Martyr.

--Noitall 13:36, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Noitall, you keep using the word "martyrdom" in inverted commas as tough it was a quote. Why? Where is it from? Shahadah has never meant Martyrdom, not once, not ever. It can be broadly used as the word faith, but that can, obviously, only apply in Islam and not in general in Arabic. If you want to use the transaltion of the word Shahadah, then use the word Tesitomny, but that is the strict translation. The word martyrdom is not mentioned, adding it, especially in inverted commas, is wrong. --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:43, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I see Irishpunktom started reverting within four minutes of the article being unprotected. If it continues, I'll protect it again.

I don't know whether these definitions of Shahid would be helpful: "Shahid means witness or martyr, University of Southern California" [7] and "Shahid - (Arabic) A holy martyr. Used to refer to suicide bombers as well as saints." Mideastweb.org [8] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:27, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Unreverted it contained a false or falsely attributed quote. Are you going to get involved in this SlimVirgin? I'd appreciate you acting as a third party, because I stand to be corrected. Shahid can be translated as Martyr, but Shahadah cannot be translated as Martyrdom (or "seek[ing] Death for Allah") as it is in the Source provided. --Irishpunktom\^talk

I can't get too involved in this in case I have to protect it again, but I've just taken a quick look around. The only translation I can find of Shahadah is "testimony" or bear witness; nothing about martyrdom. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:41, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Why is anyone giving this Islamist liar Irishpunktom the time of day? It's obvious he can't be bothered to tell the truth about his religion. (unsigned comment)

I don't see the point in denigrating the contributions of somebody who has clearly put a lot of effort into clarifying the meaning of a controversial word. Aside from the question of whether or not the PA encourages suicide bombing/homicide bombing/killing puppies, the misdefinition of such a fundamental tenet of Islam represents a libel to all muslims, and plays into the hands of the fanatics who claim this interpretation in order to justify these acts.

This article is no good to anybody if it mutates into an essay on why Islam promotes suicide - as it doesn't. If somebody can be bothered to add more detail about why Wahabi Islam promotes suicide, then fine, but it doesn't work at the moment. illWill 19:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Before I make an edit (note that I have not made an edit here), I want to address 3 points:

1. Martyr: the term is clearly described in the Wiki martyr section and the term "martrydorm" (by the way, I did not insert that edit, but I support it) is described in Websters as "the suffering of death on account of adherence to a cause and especially to one's religious faith." This is accurate and ignoring the Western definition and interpretation does not help anyone or Wiki. The first paragraph section is about one POV, the Western POV, of media encouragement for martyrdom.

2. I believe SlimVirgin's description is a good way to show the dispute within the meaning, let me copy again:

"Shahid means witness or martyr, University of Southern California" [9] and "Shahid - (Arabic) A holy martyr. Used to refer to suicide bombers as well as saints." Mideastweb.org [10]

3. Irishpunktom states that the word "shahid" stems from the same root as "Shahadah". The PATV source addresses both words and places both in the context that could reasonably believe encourages suicide bombers. It is also appropriate to place the 2nd paragraph, as I did, that states that his meaning is disputed and there are valid reasons why it may not mean what it seems to mean.

--Noitall 19:49, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

This discussion should not be about religious texts. This discussion should solely focus on how the PA uses those texts for political purposes, mainly encouraging children to become bombers. This is almost undisputable fact. Suicide bombers during Arafat's time (and now) are plastered all over gaza. Music videos play songs about martyring oneself for the cause (which is taken as blowing one self up). Schools radicalize the youth for war and hatred of Jews. [11][12][13]. So why are we still discussing this?

Guy Montag 19:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe a middle ground could be found here somewhere (I'm feeling optimistic, perhaps erroneously so). Firstly, it seems that this dispute stems from a translation of a religious term from Arabic to English, so it's probably better to assume that a fixed meaning will be very difficult to reach, as Arabic speakers seem somewhat under-represented here.. Therefore, maybe it would be better to put something along the lines of "Some observers accuse the PA of inciting Suicide Bombing through the promotion of 'martyrdom', a deliberately ambiguous term which may be interpreted by some muslims as suicide bombing" Or something like that, but better worded.

The problem is the conflation between the interpretations of Hamas etc. of Islamic teaching, and the teaching itself. Irishpunktom's material should definitely be included in the article (and maybe also sourced). But reorganization may be for the best. illWill 19:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, edit conflict there. The problem is the conflation. Also, can we get some more sources that aren't from Palestinian media Watch? I'm no fan of the Palestinian State Media, but I consider PMW to be extremely biased. Hmm. More people need to learn arabic. illWill 20:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand your reason. The source is biased, but it does the job of showing specific instances of Palestinian media and education. It is only valid to question a biased source if you have strong suspicion that these statements were fabricated or ill construed, with evidence to boot. Other sources include MEMRI, if you want Arabic translation. Guy Montag 21:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• MEMRI? They are hardly neutral now are they? Ken Livingstone wrote "Take the Middle East Media Research Institute, run by a former colonel in Israeli military intelligence, which poses as a source of objective information but in reality selectively translates material from Arabic and presents Muslims and Arabs in the worst possible light."[14]. I have to say that Will's idea is fine with me, phrased as "Some observers accuse the PA of inciting Suicide Bombing through the promotion of 'Shahid', a deliberately ambiguous term which may be interpreted by some muslims as suicide bombing". I'm willing to go with that. --Irishpunktom\^talk 21:46, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality is not MEMRI's job. It is to translate what the Arab press says privately about the West and Israel. Like I said before, you can't attack a source based on it's bias, you can only attack a source if it fabricated evidence or ill construed information. Unless you can prove that the articles MEMRI translates are innacurate or fabricated, attacking MEMRI or any source is a form of poisoning the well logical fallacy. Speaking of Livingstone, didn't he coddle known Islamist [15] Al Qaradawi, who among other things, thinks that homosexuals should be executed, thinks that fighting Americans in Iraq is a religious duty, and who justifies suicide bombing? Makes you think.

Guy Montag 22:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Well, I don't really think you can consider the press to be private. A source which selectively translates because of this bias is not the best source for info. Livingstone invited Al Qaradawi to London, not really sure why he thought that'd be a good idea though. Livingstone though is hardly a Homophopbe, he is one of the UK's most vocal proponents of Gay Marraige. He is also the only man in the labour Party I know who was expelled and then asked to join back again. He is an odd contradiction of a man, but he's consistently popular, even after introducing Congestion charges. --Irishpunktom\^talk 23:00, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

By privately I mean the difference between the statements they make in English and the statements they make in Arabic. Arafat for example, was notorious for saying everything Western leaders wanted to hear in English only to rail for Israel's destruction in Arabic. The same comes from other Arab newspapers and media. As for Livingstone, for a man who is called Red Ken and the most reviled man in Britian, he seems to love his religious extremists. Anyways, back on topic.

Guy Montag

• Guy, I think that your points on the PATV and interpretation are simply common sense and those who want to ignore it can only be doing so to insert a POV. That said, I agree with Irishpunktom's objective of inserting an alternative explanation. Then it will be left to the readers to decide which is more credible. Deleting either version is inserting a POV.

--Noitall 21:54, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Look, I think that Irishpunktom (who I assume knows his religion) might have it right. But religious definitions are not what we are discussing. We are discussing how the PA exploits the term, not how it is used within the religious context. If Irishpunktom wishes to edit the term shahadah or whatever to conform to the correct religious beliefs of mainstream Muslims, no one is stopping him, barring pov or innaccuracies. But it is innacurate, irrelevent and a tangent to insert what Shahadah means in this article, or at least where IPT wants to put it, because in the PA context, the religious meaning is not used. If you want a note about Shahadah, lets discuss where we can put it, but it should absolutely not be used as a counterclaim to the PA encouraging children to become suicide bombers and running "summer camps"[16][17] to train children to be suicide bombers or gunmen; that's fact.

Guy Montag 22:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that the source used maintains that Shahada means to die for Allah. It does not. As i've said earlier, it could be simply read as meaning faith, but that would be an Islamic way of looking at it, a strictly literal way would be to say it means tesitimony, but there is no way that it means to "die for Allah". Folks, if the promotion of Suicide Bombing on PA TV is so rampant, then surely you can come up with a better source! --Irishpunktom\^talk 23:00, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I am familiar with the fact that different Islamic sects have different translations of Shahadah. I am sure that mainstream Islam ( predominantly Sunni) believes in your translation of Shahadah, Islamist translation believes in the "explosive" martyr. It is the Islamist translation that the PA exploits, and for various reasons, of which include competition with Hamas over legitimacy. Your problem is not with this article, it is with the Shahadah article. No one is stopping you from contributing there.

Guy Montag 01:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the version to read:

Palestinian television has aired a number of music videos and announcements that promote eternal reward for children who seek "shahada" [18], which Palestinian Media Watch has claimed is "Islamic motivation of suicide terrorists".[19] The Chicago Tribune has documented the concern of Palestinian parents that their children are encouraged to take part in suicide operations.[20]

It's fully sourced, unlike the pure original research that Irishpunktom composed. If Tom wants to come up with links which state that Palestinians are not encouraging their children to become suicide bombers for religious reasons, he's certainly encouraged to, but original research must go, as per policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jay, we were in the middle of coming to a solution here before you arbitrarily decided what you had was better. Take you propositions to talk, or I will revert and encourage others to do so. Anyway, the meaning of Shahadah is not original research, it's taken from this very encyclopedia. Furthermore, I can not prove that Every Palestinian Programme ever made does not encourage "Martyrdom", I can't prove a negative, however, considering the sources provided alone, there is no evidence. --Irishpunktom\^talk 22:39, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I think you could probably merge the two disputed paragraphs to reach a compromise by agreeing on the following statements) 1. the PA has aired programmes which may be perceived to promote suicide bombing through interpretation of Islamic teachings. 2. These interpretations can, and are, disputed, especially as it is difficult to find a reliable arabic to english translation.

I don't think that it is necessary to aviod the extremist nature of some of the PA's output, as it isn't surprising given the social conditions of its production, but I don't see any other way of reaching a compromise - arguing about the interpretation of religious terms is beyond the scope of wikipedia - otherwise it would be possible to solve the internal conflicts of all religions. I think the material about the term "shahada" needs to be included to clarify that Palestinian extremism (whatever your opinion of it) is not producedd by Islam but by Palestinian society (whatever your opinion is of teh conditions that shape that society).illWill 00:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, I just read through www.eufunding.org (Jay's link) - it's an Israeli advocacy site set up to attack the EU which uses seemingly neutral language - although almost every article on the site is about how corrupt the PA is, how hateful their education system is etc, and their sources in several cases are documents obtained by the Israeli Defence Force. I'm not disputing the Chicago tribune bit, but eufuding.org is not an unbiased source.illWill 00:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Will, I have told the same thing to you as I have to Irishpunk. Attacking someone's bias is poisoning the well. If you have evidence of falsehood, attack that.

Guy Montag 00:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, this seems to no longer be a discussion about the clear facts, but a discussion about how to best cover up facts. It is a widely known fact that Palestinian society encourages suicide bombing based on Islamist interpertation of shahadah. This Islamist interpertation comes from the need to legitimize Palestinian violence in religious terms; That's fact. Palestinian television incites to murder Jews. thats a fact. Palestinians glorify suicide bombers; thats a fact. Saddam Hussein paid each family 10,000 dollars for each child they sent to blow up Israelis; thats a fact. Palestian's have "Paradise Camps" that train children as young as 9 to blow themselves up; that's fact. What you proposed, Will, is POV. So, what in the hell are we still discussing?

Guy Montag 00:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's not poisoning the well to dispute information sourced from an organisation set up to promote onle POV, and one only. www.eufunding.org is allied with www.honestreporting.com (another Israeli advocate site which aims to 'help Israel win the media war') and for a foundation which has the resources to produce huge reports like the ones on their site, it's odd that they don't even have a physical office - instead they share a PO box with a lingerie company.

I'd like to read the Chicago tribune report, but unfirtunately their site isn't free - the quote cited above is reproduced on www.eufunding.org.illWill 00:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, I don't have any dispute with these issues (although I do dispute that they need to be followed with = FACT every time they are re-stated) my problem is with the presentation and the use of what i consider to be unreliable sources. I subscribe to the www.honestreporting.com newsletter, and these sites just reproduce information from each other - just because something is endlessly repeated doesn't mean it is unbiased, or true. illWill 00:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please find more unbiased sources before reverting

Look, I'm not even disputing the claims being made here, but the article is just pingponging between two different varieties of POV. On teh one hand, Tom's stuff is allegedly 'original research' (difficult to prove, it's more interpretation than research) and on the other Guy/Jay's stuff originates from a POV source. if I had the time to go and check out a textbook on Islamic interpretation of teh Shahadah I would, but it's a lot more difficult to get that from my desktop, whereas it's pretty easy to link to one of countless Israeli advocacy sites on the net.

It also seems that Guy Montag is not actually interested in debating the source issue - he just ignored my comments about teh sources and then reverted. Whatever. I will try and come up with a more neutral version. I don't think there's any way you could categorise the suggestions I have made above as POV, unless of course that is 'not my POV'illWill 01:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's futile to try to debate with Mr. self-proclaimed right-wing Zionist nationalist.Yuber^(talk) 02:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I posted this on your Talk page Will, but I'll post it here again.
• The CIA's website says, speaking of the flag of Saudi Arabia, "green, a traditional color in Islamic flags, with the Shahada or Muslim creed in large white Arabic script (translated as "There is no god but God; Muhammad is the Messenger of God")" --Irishpunktom\^talk 08:18, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

That's fine, I certainly wouldn't dispute that source. However, it seems that user Enviroknot has now started reverting the page. Sigh. Also, I think the focus on this small paragraph is obscuring the fact that the same conflation between Islam aand suicide bombing occurs throughout the article. I would try working on making the language more neutral, but it would be a waste of time if it's going to keep getting reverted without explanation. illWill 11:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Procedure

A combination of editors made a sourced edit. It violates Wiki procedures to just declare a whole bunch of sources as "biased" and to revert. The proper procedure as discussed at length in this talk page is to fully and completely write out your dispute and arguments and to insert them in the article, without deleting the other portion. --Noitall 11:59, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I would be willing to do that, only I don't have any confidence that Esome users will not just revert the article as soon as any changes are made. Also, this dispute centres around the removal of material added by Irishpunktom which seems to be intended to balance the debate. The article as it stands is not remotely acceptable, and the questioning of sources seems to me a perfectly legitamte tactic. illWill 12:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you had not noticed . . . . this is a controversial article! Please do not revert or take away edits made by those with a different POV. And if you question sources, do it on the talk page, but do not revert or edit other insertions. Now, as to your concern on my personal talk page about being reverted if you add a paragraph with your POV with your analysis, I will ensure that your paragraph is not reverted by others. This page is controversial with strong POVs, please stay in your POV and make your arguments as strong as they can be.

--Noitall 12:50, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Fine, I'm happy to proceed that way. I think the material added by Irishpunktom needs to go in there, but i will try and add it in a manner that doesn't force a revert, in line with the suggestions I have made earlier on this page. illWill 12:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Have done a slight reword - definition of shahada still needed somwhere. I'm concerned about the source on "terror training camps" the ADL article is just a press release and doens't give any indication at all of where its claims originated.

Also, the section on "profile of a bomber" needs some sources - who has claimed that the bombers are usually middle class and college educated? Being as the Palestinian society is very poor, is this really likely?illWill 13:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That would be me. I thought I'd sourced that -- the easiest reference is a report from NPR (hardly a right wing POV source) at [21]. Mikeage 13:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, the source was very interesting. I'm just on the lookout for dubious sources in articles related to this topic.illWill 14:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

.. and another thing

This entire piece is incredibly Wesern, or Israeli-Centered. There has been a constant stream of Suicide-Bomb attacks in Iraq since the war. Yesterday alone 28 people died in suicide attacks. [22]--Irishpunktom\^talk 19:52, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Fair point. illWill 20:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Minor Edits

I've made some minor edits, which i thought were so insignificant they wouldn't need to be discussed... but they were reverted..

1. I replaced The Arab term for suicide bombing is "Isshtahad" or "Shahadat" with "The Arab term for suicide bombing is "Isshtahad" BECAUSE - Shahadat is not the Arab term for a Suicide bomber, it is in fact the pural for Shahada, and translates directly as testimonies. I have never heard of Isshtahad.
2. I replaced "Shahid" (pl. "Shuhada"). " with ""Shahid", pl. "Shahiddin")." because Shuhada is not the plural of Shahid, Shahiddin is. Much like the plural of Mujahid is Mujahiddin.
3. The original meaning of the word "Shahid" in Arabic is a person who died in a Jihad becomes The original meaning of the word "Shahid" in Islam is a person who died in a Jihad... Because Shahid translates from Arabic as Witness, it is only from Islam does it translate as a person who died in a Jihad.

Thats it i think. I really didn't think they were that major that they warranted a revert. --Irishpunktom\^talk 21:00, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Noitall might revert you just for kicks.Yuber^(talk) 21:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe that Irishpunktom's was a fine edit. In fact, for the first time, I thought Yuber made an adequate edit (and not a reversion!!!) and therefore did not touch it. Let's keep it up! --Noitall 21:08, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

BTW, Irishpunktom, you might have knowledge of this: how does the West have the idea of the 72 virgins waiting for suicide bombers in heaven? This was an unsourced but commonly held belief in this article. Is there a language discrepancy or belief? --Noitall 21:13, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Where did the west get it from? From Muslims, of course: [23]. The Qur'an promises young full-breasted maidens/voluptuous women in paradise (An-Naba 78:31-34), and the hadith (Sunan al-Tirmidhi 2687) clarify there will be 72 of them. It was a standard part of Muslim faith for centuries, though it's being called into question by revisionists these days. In any case, it's certainly promised by traditionalists. I'll go fix Tom's unagreed upon delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, about that, 72 Virgins is not Necessarily an unbiased translation, however it is one of several (an alternate translation sees it translated as merely servant girl). But, thats beside the point, at least it is for me. 72 "houri" one of the many many things awaiting someone who enters the highest plain of Paradise in Islam, and, as I understood part of a series of things not to be viewed literally. other rewards include a light of beauty, blissfull joy, a large garden of fruits, clothes as of silk... and on and on and on. highlighting one, and not all the others signifies either the editers (somewhat perverse) POV, or, as I suspect, just a lack of knowledge of the concept of Jannah --Irishpunktom\^talk 21:39, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

There are many translations and some of them include "magnificent spouses" and "maidens of equal age". Either way, the 72 part is not present, and it's just a description of Heaven in any case. Here people are trying to claim it to be a specific reward for blowing yourself up, which there is no evidence for. Oh, and PMW is not exactly the most unbiased source, neither is Jayjg's interpretation of that verse being a "standard part of Muslim faith".Yuber^(talk) 21:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The "72" part is found in the hadith, it's been a standard part of Muslim teaching for centuries, and the actual media broadcasts are available for watching if you don't trust PMW. I didn't make up the hadith or those broadcasts. Try to abide by the rules here, thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and it's not just my interpretation: According to Sheik Abdul Hadi Palazzi of the Cultural Institute of the Italian Islamic Community:

Islam says there are 72 wives for every believer who is admitted to Heaven, and not only for a martyr. The proof is a hadith which is collected by Imam at-Tirmidhi in "Sunan" (Volume IV, Chapters on "The Features of Heaven as described by the Messenger of Allah", Chapter 21: "About the Smallest Reward for the People of Heaven", hadith 2687) It is also quoted by Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir (Koranic Commentary) of Surah ar-Rahman (55), ayah (verse) 72:

It was mentioned by Daraj Ibn Abi Hatim, that Abu al-Haytham 'Abdullah Ibn Wahb narrated from Abu Sa'id al-Khudhri, who heard the Prophet Muhammad (Allah's blessings and peace be upon him) saying, 'The smallest reward for the people of Heaven is an abode where there are 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome decorated with pearls, aquamarine and ruby, as wide as the distance from al-Jabiyyah to San'a.

Ibn Kathir's Commentary on Surah al-Waqi'ah (56), ayat (verses) 35-37, quotes the hadith according to which "The Prophet Muhammad, Allah's blessings and peace be upon him, was asked: 'Will we have sex in Paradise?' He answered: 'Yes, by Him Who holds my soul in His hand, and it will be done with a strong shove. When it is finished, she will return untouched and virgin again."

--Jayjg ^(talk) 22:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Include it if they believe it (which judging by the martyrdom videos, they do) - but it's probably necessary to add the usual proviso about interpretation of these teachings. We shouldn't let fanatical interpretations of Islamic teaching stand - that's just what the fanatics would want.illWill 22:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I said your interpretation was that it is a standard part of the Muslim faith. There are many translations of it and the 72 part does not exist in the Qur'an. Picking and choosing one and saying it's "standard" is your own personal interpretation.Yuber^(talk) 22:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The point is not whether or not it is standard; the point is that the Palestinian media promises it to shaheed, as the links made clear. And if you don't believe PMW, how about CBS: "Wallace: Your state-controlled television carried a sermon by a sheik telling worshippers that martyrs will go to paradise and marry 70 beautiful virgins." [24] Jayjg ^(talk) 22:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just dont like the way that it is the single mention of the rewards of Jannah. The implication is thus that the attacks are sexually motivated. --Irishpunktom\^talk 22:16, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's what the Palestinian broadcast emphasized, isn't it? That's the point. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How do you know what the Palestinian broadcast emphasized? All you know is what the American and Israeli groups emphasized. Without hearing the full recitations or Sermons you do not know, so stop pretending you do. --Irishpunktom\^talk 22:23, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

It's right in the broadcast, Tom. Ask an Arabic speaker to translate it for you if you don't believe it. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That it is "in the broadcast" does not mean it was emphasized. How do you know the sermon(s) were not about the rewards of Jannah, and included references to all of the rewards? --Irishpunktom\^talk 22:53, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

And by the way, even pro-Muslim scholars agree that it is a standard belief, regardless of its veracity:

But there are other delights as well, according to a Hadith in an authoritative collection called Sunan al-Tirmidhi, which would be on the shelves of any Muslim scholar. In my edition, published in Beirut, it can be found in a section called "The Book of Description of the Garden," chapter 23, titled "The least reward for the people of Heaven," Hadith number 2562. The Hadith reads literally as follows: "Sawda (Tirmidhi’s grandfather) reported that he heard from Abdullah, who received from Rishdin b. Sa’d, who in turn learned from Amr b. al-Harith, from Darraj, from Abul-Haytham, from Abu Sa’id al-Khudri, who received it from the Apostle of God [Muhammad]: The least [reward] for the people of Heaven is 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome of pearls, aquamarine and ruby, as [wide as the distance] between al-Jaabiyya and San’a." That these 72 wives are virgin is confirmed by Quran (55:74) and commentaries on that verse. Al-Jaabiyya was a suburb of Damascus, according to the famous 14th century commentator, Isma’il Ibn Kathir, so one personal jeweled dome would stretch the distance from Syria to Yemen, some 1,600 miles.

Was this tradition intended to be believed literally? Do Muslims believe it literally? Are they required to? This particular Hadith has technical weaknesses in its chain of transmitters and is therefore not considered impeccable, though it is listed in an authoritative collection. As a result, Muslims are not required to believe in it, though many inevitably do (but an even more respectable Hadith with virtually the same message can be found in Tirmidhi K. Fada’il al-Jihad 25:1663).[25]

--Jayjg ^(talk) 22:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

virgins - what the hell is going on?

Every time I look at this page there are edits and rvs of a paragraph that mentions the infamous 72 black eyed virgins. Why is there fighting over whether or not to put this in? I think there should be a section on it because it is a huge part of the topic, whether or not it is based on an "accurate" interpretation of the quran. There are numerous instances cited all over the media of Palestinian and other Islamic extremist preachers citing the notion that 72 virgins await the shahid. Wikipedia should probably mention this, should probably have some information about what part of the Quran it is based on, and should probably discuss whether or not it is widely believed (if such information is available). Wikipedia should neither ignore it nor cite it uncritically. Instead of a revert war, how about a more involved explanation of what is actually going on here?csloat 22:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've given plenty of sources above regarding its belief by at least some Muslims, and its use to encourage shaheed. However, some people insist on deleting it regardless. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not removing the material, as I think it needas to be there - but some anonymous IP is reverting, probably because of Yuber's input. Please check my last revision. ThanksillWill 22:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Islamists want to keep it out because it exposes Islam's mysogynist nature. This despite the NUMEROUS Islamic commentators over the centuries who have mentioned it as well as the citations in Quran and Hadith.

Al-Suyuti's (died 1505) is at once the most informative and repulsive: "Each time we sleep with a houri we find her virgin. Besides, the penis of the Elected never softens. The erection is eternal; the sensation that you feel each time you make love is utterly delicious and out of this world and were you to experience it in this world you would faint. Each chosen one will marry seventy houris, besides the women he married on earth, and all will have appetising vaginas." Face it: Islamic "paradise" is all about the men. Women quite literally get the shaft. They'll never admit to it up front because it exposes them for the pigs they are.

Firstly, Ibn al-Asyuti was a Sufi of the Ash'ari school. He was a mystic who wrote a lot about a lot of things not considered to Mainstream Islamic. he wrote about the benefits of getting completely drunk, for example, whereas mainstream islam bans all alcohol and intoxication.

Secondly, what exactly are you hoping to achieve by referring to people of a different faith as "pigs" ? --Irishpunktom\^talk 22:40, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

LOL, you bring in some horny guy speculating about heaven a millennia after Islam was founded and that is your proof?Yuber^(talk) 22:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anon IP is trolling. Ignore it, although this page will need to be protected if it carries on. Oh, and Yuber, my comment wasn't an aattack on you - I think the, ahem, 'forthright' nature of your editing is resulting in anon IPs (no prizes for speculating as to who) following you around.illWill 22:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That guy has blindly reverted me on anything. This one's my favorite [26], he reverts a spelling and wording change that I made.Yuber^(talk) 22:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Check out the edit histories on our three anon IP friends. Sherlock Holmes does not need to be called to work out who is behind all three of them. What's the rules concerning this?illWill 22:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can you give more details, please, Will, so I can check out what you're saying? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:01, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Also posted on Slimvirgin user page.

Forgive me if I haven't followed the format correctly. If you look at the followin edit histories:

• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=217.160.75.48}
• [27]
• [28]
• [29]

It's pretty clear this is the same person, or if not that then two people acting together. Note insults against Yuber; bigoted comments about Islam; repeated reverts to the same articles etc. Hopefully this is helpful, as various contributors managed to reach a relative consensus on suicide bombing. What is the procedure for this? illWill 23:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

At least propose an Edit or Reversion on the Talk Page Please

Tedious vandal reversion, although at least he's bothered to log in this time. illWill 00:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have requested this page be protected,.illWill 00:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the latest dispute, I think it is over the 72 virgins, I can't figure out what the dispute is about except that a serial reverter got involved. Would someone please put the issues or words here on this page that are disputed? It seems like people are reverting to revert and I don't see any analysis at all to even make up my own mind.

--Noitall 02:22, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

I am going to the latest reversion, done on 08:36, Jun 17, 2005 by 24.56.238.108 (revert vandalism) --> What is the objection to this version? --Noitall 02:26, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

This discussion is going fast nowhere. First sources are erased for dubious reasons. I don't even know what the dispute is anymore.

Guy Montag 02:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Irishpunktom and Yuber want to whitewash it. Yuber's up to his usual.Enviroknot 03:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe that your statement is incorrect (there is no analysis), and for once I am not criticizing Yuber. It seems to me that the protected version is the right one and all the edits seem reasonable. I don't see any sources erased. You are going to have to point out something unreasonable or with an unchallenged POV to be able to legitimately criticize here. --Noitall 04:45, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

This version is okay - I don't think we can really take any comments by Enviroknot seriously due to persistent trolling from anon IPS, personal attacks on almost every user here and ignoring any discussion on the talk page. This page is locked entirely dues to his actions.

I also have no idea what Guy is referring to when he says ' sources erased for dubious reasons'.illWill 09:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. Islamic/Arab cultural aspects to entrenched social power of the fundamentalist Islamists - Obvious attempt at POV minimization. Support for suicide bombings and Jihad goes well beyond "fundamentalist Islamists" in the world's Muslim population.

2. Such to These radical schools of Islam teach that such - AGAIN, minimalization. It's not just "radical schools of Islam", it's Islamic state TV and Imams all over the world teaching this. Wholly POV and INACCURATE.

3. Furthermore, it has been argued that martyrdom operations are justified according to Islamic law to by Islamist militant organisations (including Al Quaida, Hamas and Islamic Jihad) - AGAIN, nothing more than minimalization, and a minimalization that is highly inaccurate.

This version is clearly NOT okay, the latest edits are all inaccurate and POV.

Also, no, this page is locked because Yuber, and now You William, are POV-pushing who refused to discuss the aforementioned edits before you made them.

I numbered the 3 points to make it easier and took off some of the personal attack. I think the modification done by Yuber and Will was done in good faith and, they may push a POV, but these mods were reasonable. That does not mean that they can't be modified to suit instead of serial reversions. Let's look at them:

1. entrenched social power of the fundamentalist Islamists is far better and non-POV.

2. Radical schools of Islam seems like a good description to me and not POV pushing.

3. Agree that a middle ground is needed. But don't you push your POV, find a more inclusive middle ground.

--Noitall 13:35, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

1. See below: it isn't "entrenched social power of fundamentalist Islamists" it's a much larger cultural problem.

2. Palestinian State TV, Syrian State TV, Al-Manar, and plenty of other Arab newspapers and TV stations distribute this. It's not just "Radical schools of Islam" and you know it.

This is the standard Islamist way of doing business - talk about how it's "just radicals" in English, and then turn around and crow about the "glorious shahid" in Arabic. It happens all the time. You should read this page's Arabic equivalent sometime, Yuber and his cronies already did their shit-work there and nobody's willing to stand up to them.

Please number and put your comments on your own comment section. You can be humorous, you can be strong, but calling names when no one has attacked you or put you down and, at best, there is very mild POV pushing will not win any arguments. On the issues:

1. I absolutely disagree, the current version is best.

2. Make a proposed edit, don't just call names.

3. You have not made a proposed edit. Be productive.

--Noitall 13:56, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly made by day to be called an Islamist - it's not often I get called an Islamist and a godless, socialist heathen (not on Wikipedia) on the same day. Yes, I do have a POV (like everybody here) - my POV is that Wikipedia should allow the reader to understand the spectrum of opinions on both sides of a debate. If that requires making the article longer then fine, lack of space is no reason to conflate various arguments together. i am no fan of the Islamists, but changing the article to suggest that all muslims support suicide bombing just makes it look bad. If you have evidence to suggest this (such as a demographic survey, for example) then include it here and you could proably change my opinion. As it is, I can't take somebody seriously if they just use the article to call people names without making any constructive solutions. illWill 14:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. And I believe the earlier version is FAR better. Minimalization is apologism and does not help at all. But if you're THAT concerned about it, how about "cultural factors in the region" if you're objecting to the phrase "Islamic/Arab".

2. The earlier edit was better. The problem with your POV nonsense is that these so-called "radical" schools of Islam are the mainstream of Islam. All it takes is a quick look through Arab state-run television networks, radio networks, and newspaper networks to see it. That and the fact that books like Mein Kampf and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are not only best-sellers but get "documentaries" like Diaspora (from Syrian TV) and Zahra's Blue Eyes (Iranian TV) made based on them. Pro-Palestinian "Kill the Jews" rallies get 500 people without bothering advertising - "Free Muslims against Terrorism" ran national ads to get attention for their rally and could barely get 50 people to show up. Claiming otherwise is trying to whitewash Islam.

3. How about "Supporters of suicide bombings argue that they are justified under Islamic Sharia law because..."?

You sound like an LGFer, pure and simple. You are already so entrenched in your racist and xenophobic POV that there's no hope debating with you , Enviroknot.Yuber^(talk) 16:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wow. Yuber calls someone racist, xenophobic, an LGFer, and accuses someone of sockpuppetry all in one sentence. Oh, wait, this is YUBER we're talking about, Mr. Serial-Reverter 2005. Go away, Yuber.

[remove personal attack]

The Funding for Peace Coalition (eufunding.org)

Inaccurate assertions were made above about The Funding for Peace Coalition (FPC). Here are some facts.

Funding for Peace Coalition ( www.eufunding.org ) is not an Israel advocacy group. It has no connection with Honest Reporting, although they have quoted us once or twice, I believe. Members of the FPC include people of all regions, and religions. The FPC has Israeli & Palestinian members. Europeans & Americans. Australians & Japanese. Canadians. And others. It is all voluntary. Membership is free & the organisation has NO resources, even the few dollars a year for web hosting is donated. It shares a POB with a company that gives it free use of the facility - although the owner is not active in the FPC. The concern of the FPC is a fair deal for the Palestinian people - which its own leadership, aided and abetted by the EU and others, have denied them. The Israeli captured documents that the FPC references are all public domain. The fact that the IDF captured them does not make them false - it only makes them accessible. All facts are referenced to allow easy checking.

This is my first use of wikipedia tools - so I hope that this gets to you.

Brad Nielson Funding for Peace Coalition brad.nielson@eufunding.org

Thanks for your reply - I apologise for writing that you are an Israeli advocate group. I think I was getting paranoid from the association with honestreporting.com. I got a bit heated in the exchange on this page, and should have been a bit more careful with my comments. I do disagree with the content of the site, but I should have just written that instead of casting aspersions around. Sorry for that.illWill 19:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Moved the images

I moved the images, for the reason indicated in the changelog. I think the "Warning" could be spiced up a bit... but aside from that, I don't think there's much reason to oppose what I did...? --GNU4Eva 04:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No opposition here. May I suggest "Graphic imagery, including pictures that include corpses or scenes of violence, may follow" as a better warning? Just "Graphic imagery" is a bit vague.Enviroknot 04:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection, it was just that the image jumped out at me. Unfortunately I've seen lots of dead people in pictures and it's still not something I'm used to.. also, I may have missed the discussion (I read most of the talk page) but why not call it a "Suicide attack" article as opposed to suicide bombing.... 9/11 didn't have bombs, kamikaze werent really bombs etc. The other thing that could be done is having a main article called "Suicide attacks" and then branching it out from there, whether it be bombs, planes, or something closer to the Columbine tragedy. GNU4Eva 04:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is a good point. Technically, Kamikaze had bombs strapped to their wings, and the 9/11 aircraft have been compared to missiles, but the pure "bombing" aspect does limit the article. You would likely face opposition from those who wish to limit the scope of the article as well. If you wish to put up a request/vote for such a move I will vote yes. I do suggest you put a formal Request for Comment up before just moving the article.Enviroknot 04:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll wait to see what others have to say here, and then I'll post an RFC. Mind you, I'm still relatively new here and really don't want to step on any toes. --GNU4Eva 04:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am the one who put the picture in and I agree with the rearrangement and warning. As for the others, they are really addressed in Islamic terrorism, war on terror, and Sept. 11, and all have their own page. They all deal with suicides and explosives in one form or another, but between the suicide bomber and use of explosive belts and car bomb, this seems to be a separate technique and phenomenon.

--Noitall 04:22, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

With your agreement I've put in the improved warning. Enviroknot 04:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It looks like this discussion has already briefly taken place (see para 18). Nothing done yet, and the discussion didn't go any further than it has here --GNU4Eva 04:31, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)