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 No consensus, but start move discussion. OK, from reading this discussion it seems like the concerns are less with the existence of the article and more about the title it currently resides under as it's not clear that it should be called a "conspiracy theory". What little discussion on the first point there is does not clearly indicate a consensus for either deletion or keeping, so no consensus. On the name question it seems like there is a consensus that the current name is inappropriate, but AFD isn't the correct venue for discussing article renames. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

War against Islam conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This started as a redirect. User:Bless sins removed the redirect in May 2006 but left the title - the lead started "War on Islam is a term used by some Muslims and westerners alike to describe military actions taken against Muslims by Western powers, prior to and after 9/11." and the text didn't mention a conspiracy theory. The lead later called it a neologism - the phrase "conspiracy theory" was only added in July 2016, without source.[1] Even today the only use of the phrase is in the lead where it's used twice. and much if not most of it doesn't seem based on sources talking about a conspiracy theory but about the "English-language political neologism of "War on Islam" which the article says was only popularized as a conspiracy theory after 2001 - although the source, pp. 559 and 560 of this book[2] seems to be referring to 9/11 conspiracy theories.[3] So no sources that I've checked so far call it a conspiracy theory. Doug Weller talk 11:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Doug Weller talk 11:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 12:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 12:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There appear to be a number of sourced uses of the term, or of language consistent with the idea of organized western hostility against the Islamic world, in the article. Having said that, the organization of the article is not great, and there is some questionable material. For instance, the article cites the billion bibles website, which appears to be beyond "fringe." There may be some value in trying to clean up the article. EastTN (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @EastTN: what sources use the phrase "conspiracy theory" to describe a war on Islam? Doug Weller talk 13:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Doug Weller: Sorry, I didn't catch that the use of the term "conspiracy theory" was your core concern. That's my mistake - I should have read more carefully. While I personally think it has many of the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory, I wouldn't be opposed to changing the article title to something more neutral. Perhaps we could just delete the word "conspiracy" and make it "War Against Islam theory"? EastTN (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @EastTN: maybe, see the descriptions at War as metaphor and Anti-Islam for that title. Let's see what others say, and in any case it's a bit of a mess. Doug Weller talk 16:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Doug Weller: I completely agree that it needs work. I noticed that both War as metaphor and Anti-Islam both use just "War against Islam". That could work, but it could implicitly imply that there is a coordinated war against Islam. My instinct is that it would be more neutral to include another word, such as "theory", to avoid taking sides on that point. On the other hand, there is an article entitled "War on Women" even though Republicans would deny that there is such a thing, and an article entitled "War on Coal" even though the Obama administration would not have characterized their policies that way. But instead of "War on Christmas" we have "Christmas Controversies". Could we do something similar and go with something like "War against Islam Controversy"? EastTN (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. At first I was going to Ivote delete. But looking deeper at the article there is something here. I think "conspiracy theory" should not be part of the title, at all. Also, it can be said, that Sayyid Qutb, Ayatollah Khomeini, and Osama bin Laden had a point. It can be said, that Muslims have been vilified by those who are not willing to raise their consciousness, because the actions of a few placed a label on Muslims. And it could be true that a number of Muslims die every day as a result of attacks - this I don't know.

But, it is not a coordinated effort as is claimed by the three aforementioned Muslim leaders. Yet, going back to the 1980s and the time of Ayatollah Khomeini, the west was indeed involved in a proxy war against the Islamic state known as Iran. The Unites States was allied with Saddam Hussein's Iraq, which was at war with Iran. Millions did die on both sides. From the intro in the Wikipedia article entitled Iran–Iraq War, it says -- "The United States, Britain, the Soviet Union, France, and most Arab countries provided political and logistic support for Iraq, while Iran was largely isolated."

So, from the Muslim perspective, millions have been killed with support form the West. Anyway, whatever is here, is not really a conspiracy theory. Also, saying "conspiracy theory" in this context seems to disregard any validity that Islam is denigrated by other people and other groups. Then there is the "racial" or "ethnic" memory of the Crusades, where Christianity was involved. I'm going to keep reviewing this. At this moment I am agreeing "theory" would be a much better than conspiracy theory, due to its neutral wording. But, is "War against Islam" a real thing?

There is no declared war against Islam on the planet. The only perceived War on Islam (in the West), that I can recall at the moment is the several Crusades. Other than that I am not sure we can include that in the title. Wikipedia reports what reliable secondary sources say. Was the war between Iraq and Iran a War on Islam? I don't know how to answer that. I can say from the West's perspective, it was a war for disputed territory between to countries - but is that the accurate perspective? Sorry, for such a long post. ---Steve Quinn (talk)

• "...it is not a coordinated effort as is claimed by the three aforementioned Muslim leaders." My sense is that the article was originally intended to discuss the claims made by Muslim leaders such as these that there is a widespread, coordinated effort by the West to attack the Islamic world as a whole. If so, the challenge is figuring out what to call that claim. Language like "War on Islam" and "War against Islam" has been used to describe the idea. But we need to avoid implicitly endorsing the idea that there is such a coordinated effort, given that many Westerners deny that it exists. We also need to be careful that we don't confuse the idea with other concepts, such as wars fought for territorial reasons or to suppress terrorism. EastTN (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• OK I see what you're saying. I think it is worth it to find a title because their rhetoric has been heard by many and resonated with many. The rhetoric seems to have historical impact looking to the past and for the implications for the future. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I haven't had time to look this over as in-depth as I would like. But so far, from what I have read, I think "War on Islam" as part of the title is not a bad idea. It's as much a hyperbole as the other article titles mentioned and it speaks to what we have been discussing. Perhaps one of the following would work: "War on Islam theory"; "Concept of War on Islam"; "War on Islam concept"; "War on Islam ideology"; "...philosophy"; "...position"; "...premise"; "...system"; "...rationale"; and so on. I prefer not to use "theory" because I think it will appear to be a made up topic. The others seem equally OK. I will have to mull them over. In any case, how do these proposed titles come across to others?---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not too hung up on the specific word we use. Of the options you threw out, I like "Concept of War on Islam", "War of Islam theory" and "War of Islam concept" in declining order of preference. But honestly, I think any of them would be better than what we have, so I'm not inclined to arm-wrestle over which one we use. EastTN (talk) 15:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• No time right now, but I hate the overuse of "theory" - it's often not appropriate and I don't think it is here. "Charges of/there there is" or something similar? Doug Weller talk 16:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm fine with not using the word "theory". I could live with "Charges of..." I also like "Concept of War against Islam" or "War against Islam Controversy". EastTN (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm glad we have a few people involved in this discussion. It seems we can throw around some good ideas. Let's give more time for Doug to chime in again. It seems he wants to say more.

So, this is good. "Charges of War on Islam" is accurate, Concept of War On Islam is good. "War Against Islam controversy" is OK, but I'm not sure it is a controversy. Taken from the view of the Muslim leaders I don't see an actual controversy. What they are saying is straightforward and I don't see anyone debating them. I don't see corruption emanating from their organizations. I don't see anyone challenging them in the domain they occupy.

To give a little contrast, even though I am guessing we all know this - there are moderate political forces in Iran, sometimes the pendulum swings their way, but they still answer to or are beholden to the more conservative domains - seemingly without controversy. Hopefully, this make sense. If it doesn't please feel free to chime in. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I completely agree with waiting for Doug to weigh in again. And I would be comfortable with any of those three titles. As an aside, I don't think "controversy" is unfair. There may be broad agreement within the Islamic world. However, we have documented sources for prominent Western leaders such as Obama and Bush denying the existence of the kind of coordinated "war" that Qutb, Khomeini and bin Laden allege. Salman Rushdie's comments seem relevant here too. So if we look beyond the Islamic world, it does seem to me that there's a real and significant disagreement about whether this "War on Islam" exists, and if it does, what the nature of it is. That's why I would be comfortable with "controversy" as well as "Charges" or "Concept".

(Just for the record, I think we've both waffled between "War against Islam" and "War on Islam". The two seem equivalent to me, and I'd be comfortable with either one.) EastTN (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on "War on Islam". I missed that. That is an error on my part - I meant to stick with "War Against Islam." Yet, I agree the two seem equivalent to me as well. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you make a good point that this can be construed as a controversy, when looking at the bigger picture. Thanks. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Doug Weller: Doug, do you have any additional thoughts, or are you comfortable with the direction we're headed in? Thanks. EastTN (talk) 20:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy. I think I prefer "War on Islam controversy". Doug Weller talk 20:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! That works for me. Steve, does that work for you? EastTN (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2019 (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.