Talk:Timeline of the history of Islam (21st century)

Sign your posts on talk pages

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Islam: Muslim history Mid‑importance Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Muslim history task force.

It is proper Wikiquette to sign your posts on Talk pages. This is an essential aspect of communication here. It helps other users understand the progress and evolution of a dialog. WP:SIG

Suicide bombing

This page says it's a timeline of muslim history, but it seems to be a timeline of terrorist attacks and suicide bombings. Is this really relevant to the history of Islam? -Kaputa12

Withdrawal from Gaza

Please stop adding information about the Israeli withdrawl from Gaza. This is a timeline is Islamic history, not Israeli-Palestinian history. The withdrawl has nothing to do with Islam.

• Please stop vandalizing this page. This page includes significant events relating to Islamic history in the 21st Century. As well as it is not an article about Iraqi history, or Saudi Arabian history, those events are included as well due to their significance in the Islamic World. The withdrawal from Gaza is similarly significant. — Linnwood 06:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • Perhaps it needs to be reworded to reflect the signifigance of the withdrawl on Islamic history. As it stands, I can see how many can interprept the event as irrelevant to Islamic history. Sasquatch讲看 07:54, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

• • The withdrawal of Israel from Gaza is significant to Palestinian history, but it does not have religious significance, nor does it reflect any broader implications for the global Islamic community as other history events listed in this century do. Additionally, the withdrawal has not prompted clashes between settlers and soldiers as whomever is editing this page suggests.

• If you're going to insist and adding information on the Israeli withdrawl from Gaza, at least state it as it relates to the context of Islamic history. Also, do not add false information. Despite the high emotions of those in Gaza, there were no violent clashes between settlers and soldiers.

• The text you keep removing is "Israel closes settlements in the Gaza Strip, prompting clashes between Israeli troops and Jewish settlers." The word "violent" was not used. But to say there were not "clashes" would be a falsehood. While many of the settlers left peacfully, many resisted, forcing IDF to drag them out. One temple require IDF to storm it, dropping soilders on the roof in cargo containers. As for 'broader implications for the global Islamic community' I don't know how you can say it does not. I am once agian reverting the article to include the item. Do not remove it unless you can show why it should not be included and a concensus is reached. — Linnwood 01:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • 1. The sovereignty of Gaza, the West Bank, and many occupied areas are in dispute and do not hold any particular religious claims stronger than any others. 2. The Palestinians, while largely Islamic, are not defined by religion, as there is a relative large population of Christians within the Palestinian community, thus making the issue of Palestinian sovereignty not part of Islamic history, but merely an issue of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. 3. There were NO clashes between Israeli troops and Jewish settlers. A clash, by definition, implies violence and use of force. The only thing even remotely close to a clash would be passive resistance, much of which was symbolic and not intended as a sign of dissent. 153.104.16.114 04:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

2003: War in Iraq

I am outraged someone would change the Islamically significant description of the War in Iraq, as it related to the Sunni Musil, Shi'a Muslim and Kurdish populations in exchange for a politically charged statement. The sections on Islam were removed, in place of "no Weapons of Mass Destruction have been found," which, true or not, has nothing to do with Islam. Do not change it again.

• Go read the timelines for the 7th-20th centuries. They all detail POLITICAL and HISTORICAL events in the Muslim World (wars, the rise and fall of empires and regimes, etc.) that do not necessarily have anything to do with Islam. The war in Iraq is no different. If you think only "Islamically significant" events should be listed, then go delete all the events you deem Islamically insignificant from the previous timelines (good luck). Furthermore, the description is not "politically charged", it simply lays out the essential facts in a succint manner. The main justification put forth for the war was that Iraq had WMD. It is now apparent that Iraq did not have WMD. These are facts. I have not said "Bush lied", or "the United States used WMD as a pretext to invade Iraq"; I've included only factual statements. Issues related to Saddam favoring Sunnis and the war leading to greater influence for Shias and Kurds, etc. are largely peripheral. Even if your assertion that only "Islamically significant" events should be mentioned, I fail to see how this information is "Islamically significant". Saddam himself was a staunch secularist. He favored Sunnis only because Sunnis were a distinct political faction and he was from that political faction. They may as well have been Africans for all it matters. Islamic identity or Sunni/Shia doctrine had nothing to do with the Ba'athist regime's autocratic policies. And Kurds are not even a religous sect anyway; Kurdish is an ethnicity, not a religion. What's important is noting that a war was fought, the reason why it was fought, and the aftermath of the war in the context of the reason why it was fought.

• • Political and Historical events are certainly important, however, this is not the proper venue for political debate and revisionist history. The primary goal of this timeline is to show how events have affected the Islamic community. Do not edit the information on the Iraq War again. If you wish discuss the justification and aftermath of the invasion of Iraq, there are more than enough pages on Wikipedia to do so. 153.104.16.114 17:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • The jury is still out on how the Iraq War has affected the Islamic community; just as you have focused on how the war apparently evened the balance of influence between the three main factions in the country, I can focus on how the War created a dangerous and volatile situation on the ground, strengthened terrorist groups, increased distrust and hostility towards the US in the Muslim World, etc. But such commentary would be POV, just as yours is. These things are subjective by their very nature, which is why it's important to focus only on facts. Your explanation is not convincing; the old information will go back up. User:BalancingAct 11:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • • My description is from an Islamic Historical point of view, not a secular partisan point of view. The bottom line is there is a choice between a descriptive analysis, related to the context of this timeline, and a short statement meant only to spark political arguments. Do not change the information again. 153.104.16.114 17:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • As I said, the jury is still out on what the objective effects of this war will be. And I don't know how you decided that discussing the balance of power between the Sunnis, Kurds, and Shias is related to the context of this timeline but discussing the reason for the war is not. An objective description of a war should stick to the facts, not toe the pro-war line. I'm changing it back; don't change it again untill you're willing to discuss a compromise. User:BalancingAct 14:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • • The purpose of this timeline is not to justify or debunk any war. My description outlines the impact on the local Islamic community, the other description invoked partisan political debate. I have the NPOV rules of Wikipedia on my side, what do you have on yours besides blind conviction? 153.104.16.114 02:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • • • Okay, so if we want to talk about the war's "impact on the local Islamic community" then why focus on these effects? Why not note how the war has lead to such a volatile security situation in Iraq, how terrorist groups have been strengthened by it, how distrust and hostility towards the United States have increased in the Muslim World because of it, etc.? Those are all pretty significant ways in which the war "impacted the local Islamic community". Why only highlight how the balance of power between the various factions has been evened (which in itself is debatable; Iraq doesn't even have a constitution yet and its government is far from stable)? The fact of the matter is that there's no objective reason to focus on this one factor to the exclusion of all others. Toeing the pro-War line does not make your description neutral. Also, it would be helpful if you explained exactly how you feel Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines support your point, rather than just stating that they do. BalancingAct 00:48, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Edit war

Firstly.... want to create usernames?

User:68.40.239.142, weapons of destruction have little to do with Islamic history... Sunni/Shia Islamic sectarian/ethnicity struggles has a lot more to do with it. User:153.104.16.114, "ouster" is not a word.... Compromise maybe? gren グレン 20:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• Ouster isn't a word? Perhaps you should contact the folks at dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=67&q=ouster) and inform them. 153.104.16.114 02:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Touché. I didn't read the definite article, but your polite rebuttal has made me cherish working with you all the more. In any case, the weapons of mass destruction thing still has no relevance and keeping this article in a constant state of flux serves no purpose really. gren グレン 08:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Pardon, just weary, not trying to be overly argumentative. I think you make some good points in your above posts.

User:68.40.239.142, I understand that there are political developments that are not necessarily Islamic involved in this and other timelines... the difference is the weapons of mass destruction are a US political matter that is why they don't belong here. 153.104.16.114 I think that Linwood's additions about the Gaza strip settlements are much more relevant than the WMD thing. Because the Gaza settlements imply increased PA activity and combined with the recent Egyptian move to support the creation of a Palestinian state in Gaza it is notable to the Islamic world... whereas what the US's motives for war and their inner political debates isn't.

I have problems with both editions... I'm going to take my stab at some balance... it can't hurt. gren グレン 09:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Explaining my edit: I think both edits had irrelevant information. 68's mentioned "no WMDs were found".... that doesn't particularly matter.... 153's had US' motives for going... that doesn't particularly matter either. For a fully fleshed out discussion of that you can see the 2003 invasion of Iraq page. My version simplifies it to tlak about the simple fact that an American led group took out Ba'athist Saddam leading to an Iraq with more Shia / Kurd control. Those are just facts, they talk about Islamic issues and are what is most important here. gren グレン 09:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Please understand, I did not intend to champion the pro-war message, nor did I intend to enflame the political ideologues of Wikipedia. I felt the justification (legitimate or not) used would be proper background information, especially years from now when the war isn't fresh in everyone's mind. Your point is well, taken, however and your edit is probably what's best for now. Your modifications are acceptable. Well done. Additionally, I am not fully opposed to any mention of the Israeli withdrawl from Gaza in this article, however, I am opposed to one which makes no mention of the Islamic implications and also includes false information. Perhaps a more in depth mention of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in this century is required, beyond just the recent settlement dismantlings. 153.104.16.114 12:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• • I am willing to compromise, but I still think that mention of Saddam favoring Sunni Muslims and "greater power for Shias/Kurds" should not be made. It's simply too early to state this as a definitive fact (as I mentioned, Iraq doesn't even have a constitution yet, and its government is far from well-established). And like it or not, such statements do make the description seem slanted toward the pro-War POV, since this is EXACTLY what the US and Britain claim that the war acheived while their detractors focus on the negative effects. I won't re-add info about the WMD, but I will delete mention of Saddam favoring Sunnis or the post-war power balance. BalancingAct 00:48, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • You're not willing to compromise, you're willing to remove significant information to suit your political agenda. No one disputes the Ba'ath party in Iraq gave the vast majority of political power to Sunnis. No one disputes the Shi'a have a majority in the current legislature with the Kurdish minority also well represented. The US and Britain don't "claim" this to be true, it is an accepted fact. Do not edit the timeline again. 153.104.16.114 17:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • • Oh, I have a political agenda? No one disputes that the security situation in Iraq was a lot better under Saddam. No one disputes that violent attacks by extremists have increased tenfold since the war. No one seriously disputes that this war was overwhelmingly opposed across the Muslim World and increased Muslim distrust and hostility towards the United States. These equally important effects are also "accepted fact", why don't we put them in as well? Because it would be inappropriate and slanted. Oh, but it's okay to focus on the apparently positive effects of the war, the same effects that are used by the war's proponents to argue that it was just and necessary. Great logic. No political agenda there. I'm taking out your biased info and leaving simply the description. I think that's reasonable. Do not change it again. BalancingAct 00:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • You've already exposed yourself as an anti-war zealot. Take it somewhere else, at least go to an article where your opinion would be relevant. I have a consensus and Wikipedia policy on my side.

• • • • • • Great logic. Either defend your position in a civilized manner using logic and reason (not childish ad hominem attacks), or don't change the description again. Also, if you feel you have a Wikipedia policy on your side, it would be nice if you cited to a specific clause, like an educated person would. BalancingAct 11:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • • • Explain yourself, or don't change the description again. BalancingAct 12:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
            • Because of your failure to provide an explanation for your repeated vandalism, I have added a request for mediation in reference to this page. BalancingAct 16:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • I have explained the information I've added numerous times on this page, it is you who have not thoroughly explained (through any legitimate, neutral, means) why you insist on removing important contextual information. This is a timeline of Islamic history, the impact of the war on Islamic sects is relevant and important. Do not remove this information again. 153.104.16.114 23:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • • This war had many effects, each of which is cited by its proponents and opponents in support of their respective positions. Anti-war commentators point to the surge in violence and extremism in Iraq, the coalition's failure to find evidence of weapons of mass destruction, and damage to the United States' and United Kingdom's reputation in the Muslim World to argue that the war was unjustified, whereas their opponents point to democracy in Iraq and greater freedom and influence for Shi'as and Kurds to argue the opposite. Your focus on the latter effects (which are not undeniably more important the the former) tend to give the description a pro-War tint. Furthermore, all wars have positive and negative consequences. Shi'as and Kurds receiving political representation proportionate with their number is a positive consequence of the war. But it wasn't the reason the war was carried out, nor is it undisputably the most important consequence of the war, nor is it undisputably the issue that has garnered the most attention in post-war media or academic commentary and discussion. The positive and negative consequences of this war and the ways in which it has impacted Iraqis and the Muslim World at large could fill an encyclopedia. In historical terms, this war happened yeaterday; we won't know what the long-term effects of it will be for a while. At this point, I think it is best to just limit the description to the objective facts and let history decide what the single most important consequence of the war was. Pending mediation, I have changed the description to "Iraq War". Please do not change it again until we have this dispute resolved. BalancingAct 20:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • • • • You're still missing the point. This is not an article about the Iraq War, it is an article about the history of Islam. While the war in Iraq was not fought for religious purposes, there is an outcome for the local Islamic community which is what I was expressing in my summary on the timeline. Regardless, we'll wait and see what the mediators think. 153.104.16.114 03:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • • • • • See, but that is the point: it's too early to comment on what that outcome is. We're only two years removed from the war; at this point, anyone can highlight one or two effects and isolate them as the outcome for the Islamic community in order portray the war in a positive/negative light. It will be a few years before we can look back and point to one effect of the war and say, "the Iraq War resulted in X." BalancingAct 1:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

May I suggest some things here. Will those without usernames get them in an attempts to make mediation and everything easier. Would you also start exploring wikipedia. The majority of most of your edits are on this article... why you would come just to argue about this article I don't understand. If you can be productive in ohter parts of the encyclopedia it will give a better sense to mediators and others. gren グレン 17:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• I've been frequenting and enjoying Wikipedia for a long time, I've just never felt the need to edit any article until I came across this one. Additionally, my IP changes from time to time. 153.104.16.114 00:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Mediation Pending

Linnwood, please refrain from editing the section on the Iraq War until the mediation has been completed. 153.104.16.114 16:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The mediation is taking too long. I propose we resume the edit war. 153.104.16.114 16:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

How about we just leave it the way it is? BalancingAct 10:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

That's fine too. 153.104.16.114 20:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Worries

Is anyone else worried that this page, given its completely arbitrary curation, is manifesting itself as an inherently biased view of what constitutes encyclopedic "history" of Muslim society, culture, and politics? Looking at the complete gap between 2014 and 2018 should give anyone pause. Are we as Wikipedians suggesting that nothing of note happened in the Muslim world for three straight years? I would back anyone's proper nomination of this to just be deleted. - Wacomshera (talk) 02:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)