The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as POV and OR. --Coredesat 03:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religious conversion and terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The topic of this entry is not notable in the least. As the entry title tells us, the topic is "religious conversion and terrorism", yet the page is filled with only anecdotal information about converts to Islam who have since conversion engaged in (or simply been suspected of engaging in) terrorism. No viable connection is made between the act of conversion and engagement in terrorism, yet by organizing the anecdotal information under such a heading the entry clearly engages in nascent WP:OR, by suggesting such a connection. This is especially problematic because the focus of the anecdotal information isn't "religion" but a religion--Islam. I have attempted to suggest that the entry could be moved, and/or that the entry be merged into Islamist terrorism. Very few (3 total) editors have engaged these suggestions, and the responses have been either that the topic is clearly notable, without ever justifying how or why this is the case, or that the page should simply be deleted. I suspect that a certain group of editors wants the entry to exist to further a political agenda that benefits from making the connection between Islam and terrorism as notable as possible, yet Wikipedia should not be here to further these types of agendas. Please prove me wrong if you oppose this AfD and explain how Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia benefits from its existence and why it can't just be merged. PelleSmith 12:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete primarily due to WP:OR concerns, lacking any reliable secondary sources, all the references are to examples of "terrorists" who were religious converts and none about the topic of "Religious conversion and terrorism". Furthermore this could be viewed as a narrowly disguised attack page on Islam, and certainly has POV issues with the fact that while the title seems to suggest it is religion-neutral, the discussion is about Islamic converts exclusively. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Pointless vague topic that would suggest that the conversion itself leads to terrorism, which doesn't seem to be the case. The Behnam 15:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom, WP:OR, etc. Wrong on so many levels. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Arkyan.--JyriL ^talk 16:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, same reasoning as those above. — George Saliba ^[talk] 17:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The article examins an aspect of religious conversion that is specially applicable to terrorism. There are examples of terrorists who have converted to other religions (Christinaity for example), however best known examples are those who have converted from Christianity or Hinduism to Islam. Overwhelming majority of converts are not involved in terrorism. However a significant fraction of the terrorists are known to be converts. That fact that most of such terrorists are converted to Islam, does not mean that this fact should not be discussed. Wikipedia needs to represent facts fairly in a neutral manner, but that does not mean that facts should be censored.

PelleSmith has deleted a number of citations, asking me to work on them, while proposing to delete the article. It is apparent that his mind has been made up, and he would like to see the article gone.--ISKapoor 17:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I PRODed it a month ago and now I've put it up for an AfD for reasons explained above. I think its obvious I don't think this entry should exist. Cheers.PelleSmith 21:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that having an article putting these two concepts together suggests that the article will talk about how the two are related. By this, it should talk about how the conversion itself is related to the terrorism, but this will obviously be OR or undue weight on a particular controversial viewpoint. The information is good but is best placed elsewhere The Behnam 19:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OR. If I could come up with a list 12 people who engaged in X and subsequently engaged in terrorism, would Wikipedia accept an article called X and terrorism that darkly hints the two are linked? How about Premarital sex and terrorism? Illegal immigration and terrorism? or maybe Driving while black and terrorism? You get the idea. Anybody can come up with a dozen people who did almost anything someone wants to discredit and then subsequently engaged in terrorism or similar. I frankly don't see what makes this article any different from the (deliberately silly) ones I named. --Shirahadasha 20:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article was obviously created to push a POV and should be deleted. Macduff 20:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above. Hopelessly POV. Such articles, by nature, can never have a place in Wikipedia. metaspheres 20:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SOAP and WP:NOR.--Jersey Devil 01:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If there are some published studies on this topic then perhaps the studies themselves can have articles but at the moment the article looks like original research. Dalf | Talk 07:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Islamist terrorism. Religion is the driving force behind most terrorism (not premarital sex or illegal immigration) so a mention of terrorists who were converts is relevant in this case. --Candy-Panda 08:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and do not merge or redirect. Religious conversion and terrorism does not deal solely with Islam. KazakhPol 05:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This is a very interesting topic and should be expanded on. There does need to be a topic on this as its a well known phenomena. If not, then it should be merged.--Matt57 18:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? You've offered exactly no reasons for why this is supposedly the case. That is exactly the problem here. Same goes for the following two keep voters. Thanks, of course, to all of you for showing up and supporting the "anti-Islamic" perspective. This type of blind "POV ballancing" is always appreciated. The day that these types of entries aren't bullied by the two politicized factions on either side of the spectrum will be a day in which knowledge has finally won out here at Wikipedia. Any topic mildly related to Islam, will unfortunately remain, until that day, a forum for unintelligent political rhetoric, and bad OR, as is the case here.PelleSmith 02:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - ITs seems to be reliably sourced and notable.Bakaman 00:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per ISKapoor .--Shyamsunder 12:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete original research IP198 14:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request to PeleSmith I urge PeleSmith to not delete the citations or parts of the article. --ISKapoor 21:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that your request is at all appropriate in this forum, however I will continue to delete bad references. If a reference is inappropriate or completely misrepresented then it doesn't belong. Don't try to put makeup on the entry so that people think it looks better on the surface. On top of this, as you can see from the many delete comments, none of your supposed references deal with the real issue here WP:OR. Anyone who deems both the request and this response inappropriate on this page please feel free to delete both. Cheers.PelleSmith 23:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (or at least userfy). Violates WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and so many others. This article doesn't even have pith, it's just a POV, conjecture, and some anecdoatal bullet lists. Hello, "avoid lists" is in the WP:MOS too. Either delete, or userfy until the one lone single passionate author can write a more objective, responsibily cited article. Oh BTW, the author is canvassing editors via e-mail, another discouraged practice, if I recall. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 01:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per ISKapoor. It seems an interesting and a notable topic. Currently it suffering from lots of weaknesses thats true but it has long way to go. As I can see the refurbishing process should be start from WP:MOS. Mind everyone, Religious conversion and terrorism is better than this :-) Good luck, Kapoor. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 15:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No amount of "refurbishing" can get past the WP:OR issue. I tried originally to suggest a move--renaming the entry--or a merge into Islamist terrorism. If there were enough of these examples across religions of people who convert and then engage in terrorist activity then a merge into Religious terrorism maybe more appropriate. No one was very keen on any of these suggestions because it seems that the supporters of keeping the information in the entry are also adamant about engaging in OR to connect the act of conversion to terrorism. It is that adamancy which prevents any "productive" changes.PelleSmith 16:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — This is an interesting topic. I agree it should not focus solely on muslim extremists. -- Geo Swan 18:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I question whether some of the people listed currently listed actually belong. But that is an issue for discussion on the article's talk page, not here. Geo Swan 18:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remember POV is not grounds for deletion. POV is not grounds for deletion. A perceived POV should trigger attempts at a rewrite, or trigger discussion on the talk page. Talk of an article's topic being "hopelessly POV" disturbs me. It particularly disturbs me when those voicing the concern haven't made any effort to follow the guidelines in WP:DEL Geo Swan 18:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • When did original research become grounds for deletion? Whether the topic is worthy of preservation isn't really connected with whether the current revision contains original research. A couple of respondents describe the artilce as I added a couple of entries. I made sure that I cited articles called the peretrators "terrorists", or their acts "terrorism" — which I believe addresses the OR concern. Geo Swan 18:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding PelleSmith's concern that "no amount of 'refurbishing' can get past the WP:OR issue." Well, PelleSmith's first reaction to the article was not a sincere attempt to try to help refurbish it, it was the ((prod)) mentioned above. A ((prod)) does not qualify one to claim attempts at improving the article failed. And the two concerns mentioned in the ((prod)) are not OR. They are notability, and a suggestion that the article is an attempt to "publicize" the study. Geo Swan 18:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is, IMO, a feeble yardstick for determining the merit of articles, because, particularly on controversial topics, like those related to terrorism, it can become unconsciously tainted with POV, and with the inherent systemic bias arising from the wikipedia's membership base. Those who are basically happy with their government's reactions to terrorism, think all terrorists, and the issues arising from them are not notable. Those who think the wikipedia should serve as a tool for interested readers to make up their own minds, and reach their own conclusions about how to react to the threat of terrorism welcome expanded coverage of individual terrorisst, terrorist groups, and the work of authoritative commentators. Geo Swan 18:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If a study is authoritative, no one needs to apologize for trying to write a well referenced, NPOV coverage of it on the wikipedia. Their attempts should not be criticized on the grounds of publicity. If the nominator thinks the current version falls short on the wp:rs or wpnpov fronts, they should address it on the talk page. Geo Swan 18:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am afraid IsaKapoor is correct. The record shows the nominator has removed references from the article. It is hardly fair to criticize an article for being poorly referenced, when one is removing those references. 18:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete per original research concerns. Addhoc 19:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — I asked on WP:AN/I, whether it was appropriate for PelleSmith to be editing the article, and removing references, when one of their criticisms was that the article was poorly referenced. As I said above, I think it is an interesting topic, but it should not be confined to terrorists, or alleged terrorist, who are muslim extremists. I introduced a couple of entries for alleged terroirst who were not muslim extremists, and I wonder whether some friend of PelleSmith should warn him or her that removing references when they have criticized the article for being poorly referenced may give the unfortunate appearance of bad-faith. -- Geo Swan 19:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding bad references does not solve the problem. A reference that does not verify, support or otherwise relate to that which it is referencing is simply a lie. I have provided detailed edit summaries that anyone who bothers to read would plainly understand (unlike others engaged in the entry I may add). What is bothersome is that someone has to waste time to read these references just to find out that they DO NOT actually reference argument made in the entry text they have been added to. If I tag an entry with the unreferenced tag and then someone adds a bunch of bogus references are you telling me that it is unethical for me to remove those references and then re-tag the entry? When that is the case I'll leave this project. I'll stand by my track record regarding this entry in entirety. I have made several efforts to fix the problem with this page and have argued the WP:OR issue from the very beginning. It was not mentioned in the PROD, but then again the PROD had a very vague reasoning to it. See my first response after the de-PRODing of the entry here. Anyway, like I said, I stand by my track record and anyone who finds it problematic for me to remove bad references ought to think about whether or not it is a problem for people voting "keep" here adding bad references.PelleSmith 19:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Detailed edit summaries" Edit summaries are not the appropriate place for a dialog. How can someone append their questions, or replies, to a "detailed edit summary"? Please put your concerns on the talk page. Not in your edit summaries. Geo Swan 20:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I didn't know better I'd think you were trolling. Edit summaries are THE appropriate place to explain the nature of an edit. Of course anyone paying even the slightest bit of attention to the page history or the discussion page knows I've over engaged it if anything. Again concerns don't go in edit summaries, explanations do. A reference that doesn't reference anything in the text is a bad reference, and when editors don't bother even defending them but instead launching attacks on another editor's editing behavior that is the pretty much the most unwiki thing I can think of going on here.PelleSmith 02:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As to whether those references were "bad" or not? That is purely your opinion. IMO, you should have turned to the talk page FIRST, and raised your concerns about the references, not simply deleted them. How does your approach give your correspondents a chance to reply, if they have an answer to your concerns? Aren't you concerned that your approach is an ongoing trigger to edit warring? Geo Swan 20:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion? I trigger edit warring? That's a very convenient way to look at it. Is it my opinion when a reference is not from a reliable source as defined by our own standards? Or when a reference to the "fact" that a certain individual makes video appearances says that the person in the video was "thought to be" that individual? Are those just opinions? I guess its better to just edit without edit summaries so that you can never be accused of having "opinions".PelleSmith 02:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that you are on record, calling the article irredeemable, I am very surprised that you think it is appropriate for you to editing it all right now. If I were the closing admin I would consider relisting the article, and request you refrain from editing it, at all, until after the second ((afd)) closes. Because I would think that the contributors who tried to make the article useful, conform more fully to wikipedia policies, and to address your previously stated concerns would have every right to think your edits damaged the article both prior to its nomination for deletion, and while its nomination for deletion was underway. And this robbed their efforts of the fair consideration they deserved. Geo Swan 20:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you didn't care about the advice you got when you reported me on the incident noticeboard. Maybe you should at least take it into consideration. There is nothing unethical about my behavior in the least. I again stand by all my edits and I stand by the explanations I provided in the edit summaries. The reason why there just simply aren't any adequate references for this entry is because its WP:OR. Why hasn't anyone challanged my explanations? Why do you keep on harping on my intentions and my behavior? Is it because actually discussing the content would not get you anywhere?PelleSmith 02:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• We are all supposed to assume good faith. Well, IMO that imposes on you and I an obligation to conduct ourselves in a way that demonstrably -shows good faith-. Even if, for the safe of argument, you or I know, in our inner heart, that our intentions are good, if we behave in a way that appears to show a lack of respect for the views and efforts of other contributors, we are damaging the wikipedia, because everyone only has so much good-will. And, if we give the appearance of reckless disregard to the views or efforts of others, even if we know, in our innoer heart, that our intentions are good, we have unnecessarily drained others of good-will that should be available for disputes that weren't so easily avoidable.

Again I'm going to say that the edit history and discussion page speak for themselves. I have more than enough faith that rational editors can see I am not behaving in bad faith.PelleSmith 02:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• With regard to your implied accusation that you faced some kind of clique of POV-pushers... you do realize hat this is what you implied when you wrote: "I suspect that a certain group of editors wants the entry to exist to further a political agenda". I encourage you to reconsider whether that comment was appropriate, or fair to those who had contributed to the article prior to its nomination. For the record, I don't know you, other than from this current discussion, and from the article and its talk page. Neither do I remember ever coming across any of the contributions of any of the other contributors to this discussion. I am not a member of a conspiracy. I first came across this article when I read the ((afd)). I thought it held promisee, and I made good faith attempts to do so. — I shouldn't have to say all that. But you expressed this suspicion about the motives of those who don't agree with you. -- Geo Swan 20:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then clearly you don't belong to any such clique of editors. I do not go around tossing about conspiracy accusations nor do I think its a cabal, but there are several factions on either side of Islam related entries and some of the editors from one of these factions have made their appearance both here and on the entry in question. There is no secret here, and others familiar with these entries are well aware of what I speak, I just happen to find it exhaustingly unproductive--FROM BOTH SIDES.PelleSmith 02:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wikipedia is not the place for novel synthesis of facts. If you think that religious converts are more likely to be terrorists, by all means, go write your master's thesis on it, but it's not an encyclopedic topic. Considering that the article is primarilly about Islamic terrorism, it doesn't really have anything to offer anyway. There is also an article on Religious terrorism and at most, this topic is worth a sentence or two there. --Born2x 19:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, mostly OR and the rest is poorly ref'ed. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 19:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete blatant POV and OR. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.