Talk:Islamic Action Front

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Islamic Action Front. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151231084657/http://www.jordantimes.com/news/local/hundreds-including-top-leaders-abandon-islamist-party to http://www.jordantimes.com/news/local/hundreds-including-top-leaders-abandon-islamist-party

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

WeaponizingArchitecture anti-Zionism is not cited on its page as a political ideology. It is also original research. Therefore these are good grounds for removal. Helper201 (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Please prove it's original research. I added a source from the main text to back it up, and you removed it anyways. This isn't helping either of us. ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 04:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

"Please prove it's original research." It is the other way around, WP:BURDEN of verifiability is on you as inserter of material. Also applies to "far-right" label. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

the far-right label was added by someone else. I re-added it in reverts because User:Helper201 kept removing Anti-Zionism (THE SOURCE FOR ANTI ZIONISM IS RIGHT HERE AND YOU REFUSED TO READ IT.) because it is their opinion that it's not an ideology, based on dubious semantics on the wikipedia page.

If you want a source, please consult the editor who initially added it, User:BrendonJH. As a matter of fact I don't believe the position should say "Far right". I was going to make a RfC on the position but this situation has prevented me from doing so. ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 14:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

It originally said far right, but then the entire political position section was removed and I just re-added it. BrendonJH (talk) 16:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Helper201: @Makeandtoss: I've started an RfC below this section. I hope to get the input of more editors. Feel free to contribute. Thanks! ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 15:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

WeaponizingArchitecture please tell me where on the page Anti-Zionism it is cited as a political ideology. That is not "dubious semantics", it’s a very clear and simple point you haven't answered. Simply put, there isn't one. It therefore should not be placed in the ideology section of the infobox. Helper201 (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Again you are going off of your personal definition of an "ideology". The ideology section of the infobox is not strictly for political philosophies. This has been consensus across articles for years and can be found on pages like Hezbollah. ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 04:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm not. I'm asking where its cited, that has nothing to do with my views. I hardly control what's cited on all Wikipedia pages. "The ideology section of the infobox is not strictly for political philosophies"; says who, you? We are specifically talking about the ideology section, which as its name suggests, is for ideologies. This assumption of a consensus is your own WP:OR. Helper201 (talk) 04:40, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

"We are specifically talking about the ideology section, which as its name suggests, is for ideologies"

That's not a strict guideline. That's what I am pointing out. Please consult User:Bobfrombrockley below my message. Thanks ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 19:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure if anti-Zionism is the right term, unless that’s what sources say. But a strong pro-Hamas, anti-Israel, anti-normalisation agenda is mentioned by most reliable sources, and is more central to their brand than any domestic positions that fit on a left/right spectrum, and this should somehow be reflected in the info box. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

It's moreso used in infoboxes as a catch-all term for any kind of opposition to Zionism as a central party principle, which in this case it fits. I've put an RfC below on the position section, which I currently favor a "Right wing to Far right" listing as the political position. ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 19:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Request for comment on political position

Should the subject in the article (the Islamic Action Front) be classified as Right-wing or Far-right? ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 15:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Looked for reliable sources using various combinations of right/left/centre/conservative/liberal and got the following hits:

right-wing

far right

highly conservative

conservative (conservative on women's issues)

Islamist (Islamist but democratic and not extremist or militant)

Conclusion: no, stick with Islamist and possibly conservative BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Would a compromise of "Right-wing to far-right" be apt in your opinion? ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 20:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

J think I’d want to see other sources saying that first. The first two sources from my list are the least reliable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I might try to find some later, though I am busy. ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 19:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• Neither a cursory search shows neither label being used to describe them; [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. I don't know why we should go out of our way to slap a label on them. The lead sentence is just fine as is. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Neither(Summoned by bot) There is no necessity to put them on a L-R spectrum, they are most often referred to as 'Islamist' and/or 'moderate Islamist'. That they are socially conservative on moral issues doesn't automatically put them on a L-R spectrum. Pincrete (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

You would be surprised to know that the IAF is at a higher "leftist" level than the Jordanian communist party when it comes to the economy, thus as mentioned by the others above, the R-L spectrum does not apply here. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)