This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects 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.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles
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.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
This article was nominated for deletion on 1 June 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.
A fact from Jihobbyist appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 June 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
No need to merge. Of course we could marge all sorts of things under Islamic terrorism, as suggested -- such as every single article in its category. But as here, where we have close to 20-odd refs, and careful discussion of the word, and we get the benefit of other cats (such as words coined in the 2000s) and talk page wps that we would lose, there is not benefit and some loss from the merger suggestion. Arguably, if we put this in that article, it would be outsized, and wp:undue. Just the sort of well-referenced article that should stand alone, IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One editor insists on complete deletion of this passage without discussion. It is sourced, it is accurate, it is neutral POV, and it certainly provides the most detailed example of a jihobbyist, never mind that it also helps verify that Hasan himself was also certainly a jihobbyist himself. There is no wp rule that justifies such as complete removal of of a sourced, relevant edit. Please do not remove this section without discussion, though feel free to improve it. Please do not use such bold deletion to promote a POV that a subject covered by many notable sources is not relevant to the topic. Bachcell (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of the most extensively documented cases is that of Duane Reasoner, Jr., an 18-year-old Muslim convert who was one of the few close colleages of Nidal Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood shooting suspect. [1] Major Hasan Dined with 'Jihad Hobbyist' Friend of Accused Shooter Called Himself "Extremist," Watched Al-Qaeda Videos]", by Mark Schone, Joseph Ree, Mary-Rose Abraham, and Anna Schechter, ABC News. Reasoner has characterized himself as an "extremist, fundamentalist, mujhadeen, Muslim." After the shooting, he told a British reporter that he felt "no pity" for the victims of the Fort Hood massacre. Reasoner also watched videos on YouTube by Anwar al-Awlaki as well as those featuring Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban, the "blind sheikh" now in prison for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and Adam Gadahn.
I came across this article by chance - and thought for a moment it was a joke. Alas it was not. "Jihobbyist" gets 12000 hits on Google - a large percentage of them are Wikipedia or Wikipedia clones, or articles by Jarred Brachman or about Jarred Brachman. Just because someone coins an eye-catching phrase, does that mean an article should exist for it? My thought: "Wikifag" gets 13000 hits on Google, not one of them on Wikipedia or its clones. Why is there not a Wikipedia entry for "Wikifag": a person who is not an active expert or an academic in anything but who has a fascination with and an enthusiasm for "the project" and writing about things that only experts or academics should write about. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
