Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:21, 21 July 2005

Religious persecution by Muslims

Fork of Persecution of non-Muslims to avoid get around VFD of that article. Author of the article is pushing an anti-Islam POV on numerous articles. ~~~~ 07:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC) This article is neutral, as manifested by the lack of POV complaints. --Germen is not the only contributor to this article. When persecution of muslims is a legitimate article, why Religious persecution by muslims is not? Note that no objective reasons have been stated to delete this article. All attempts seem to focus on my supposed bad faith. --Germen 12:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Update: I have added a discussion. --Germen 13:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete ~~~~ 07:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that this user User:-Ril- actively pushes for a RfC for me. --Germen 12:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Note that the above statement is mildly inaccurate. I co-signed an RFC that was also co-signed by a large number of other users disturbed by Germen's editing behaviour. For those that are interested, the RFC is available at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Germen ~~~~ 19:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I think if you change the word "By" (in the title and some of the sub-sections) to the word "OF" this article makes alot more sense. The author seems to be writing in terms of persecution OF Muslims. I read the article and much of its information seems to be covered in the blue links I followed. Perhaps some of this material should be Re-Directed or Merged with the existing material. I think an edit would help this page. A historical record of the persecution of any population certainly warrants notable topic status, and the tone of this one seems largely historical rather than an opinion piece. Hamster Sandwich 07:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete There is already a Persecution of Muslims article, this page is yet another opportunity for Germen to spread his anti-muslim propaganda (he's already created numerous pester pages that have all been deleted through lengthy VfD). I see no reason not to cover the same subject matter in the Islam article. Also I'm not sure that religious persecution can be used in this sense: when I hear the term I generally think of people being persecuted for their religion, not people being persecuted because of religion. Axon 09:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Persecution OF muslims is completely different of persecution BY Muslims. Failing to see this difference is symptomatic for user:Axon. I did cite verifiable sources, so what I wrote cannot be classified as biased anti-Muslim propaganda. --Germen 12:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I was referring to Hamster Sandwich's remarks. Your continued attempts to contradict votes and harrass voters here and on other VfDs are not welcommed. If nothing else but for the sake of your own arguments, please desist. Axon 12:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Legitimate comments on factual inaccurate statements cannot be classified as harassment. Your continued argumentum ad hominem attacks and logical inaccuracies are not welcomed. --Germen 12:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC).
        • You haven't actually highlighted any "factual inaccuracies" other than mis-reading my remarks. Your continued attempts to shout down opposing votes is not doing you any favors or making people more inclined to vote in your favor. Axon 13:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
          • As I said, responding to remarks is a valid discussion practice and cannot be considered harassment. Thus your remarks are logically inacurate. Note that your continued attempts to shout down opposing voices are not doing you any favours of making people motre inclined to vote in your favour, for as far that matters. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, so arguments are more important than votes. --Germen 13:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Persecution of Muslims is not the same as Religious persecution by Muslims. In fact, it is totally different, making yours a moot point. I don't see how you can miss this (or expect anyone to fall for it). Furthermore, I would think that more people were persecuted for not being of a certain religion, than for being of a certain religion, which in my opinion makes this article more relevant than Persecution of Muslims. I am not sure what you're trying to pull here, but I don't like it. --Dv 14:53, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Huh? Axon 16:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Can you please come up with a better response? If not, I will have to assume that you have some sort of agenda which beyond simply making a valid contribution to wikipedia. TIA. --Dv 16:40, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV fork. --Viriditas | Talk 09:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Vote pending result of VFD on Religious Persecution by Jews - This article was created first by Germen, and I, apparently very unwisely, that a "Religious Persecution by..." series to be a good idea. I had planned on including every major World Religion and Atheists (Communists, and perhaps French Revolutionaries, etc). However all in-all out, and if the jewish one goes I'll nominate Religious persecution by Christians too.

--Irishpunktom\ 10:16, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Finally I agree with Irishpunktom on something. The idea of "persecutions by the followers of religion XXX" is unwise. Don't mix fanaticism, ideology, politics, greed, etc. with religion (one's relationship with god). ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed, we should focus on the religious reasons for persecution others. Hence the title, Religious persecution by Muslims. We try in the article. --Germen 13:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV fork by problem user. Dcarrano 10:54, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Also "problem users" can suggest useful articles. Also, it is not proven I am a problem user. A decision on deletion should be taken by checking the article on its merits (or lack thereof), not by judging by person. --Germen 12:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Main problem with the precursor of this article was its title. The title has been changed to the more accurate "Religious persecution by Muslims", which is a valid entity. --Germen 12:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Argumentum ad hominem. This article is neutral, as manifested by the lack of POV complaints. I am not the only contributor to this article. When persecution of muslims is a legitimate article, why Religious persecution by muslims is not? Note that no objective reasons have been stated to delete this article. All attempts seem to focus on my supposed bad faith. --Germen 12:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Update: I have added a discussion. --Germen 13:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep all viruses of the mind must persecute other viruses in their struggle for existence (unfortunately). Dunc|☺ 13:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for the same reason I supported keeping the Religious persecution by Jews, by Christians, by atheists, and other articles in what could have been a great series. Unfortunately, the "How dare you speak ill of my people?!" brigades in each community will never let these articles survive. Too bad. Misplaced Pages can still be a good resource for noncontroversial topics. It's just not mature of enough for sensitive ones. Babajobu 13:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I do not see why this should not be documented. Dv 13:59, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Note, this user has less than 50 edits to his name. Axon 14:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • And? Dv 14:13, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • See WP:SOCK. Axon 14:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
        • I have and I am thus far still missing your point. Please elaborate. Dv 14:22, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
          • For the purposes of voting, editors with less than 100/500 (can't remember which) or so edits can be considered sock puppets. This should be referenced in the sock puppets page. Axon 16:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
          • Axon, I have checked Dv's edits and he does not seem a sock puppet to me, but rather a new user which has contributed to several useful articles, e.g. about programming languages. It is Wikiquette not to bite newcomers. --Germen 16:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
            • And whose sock-puppet am I? Dv 16:40, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
        • Axon, agressive attacks on other users will not favour your case. (sic) --Germen 15:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic, POV fork. Jayjg 14:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, there're similar articles on other religions, and I dare someone to claim that there isn't pertinent information for this article's expansion. Shem 14:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. But it would be nice if the creators of these articles covered that pertinent information from the start. --EMS | Talk 15:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Valid topic but poorly written and obviously incomplete. It covers too little and takes too long to cover it. On the other hand it is well organized and opens the door to better. --EMS | Talk 15:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I have amended my vote as noted above in response to the edits by Hamster Sandwich. The article is now much more focussed and useful. It still needs a lot more research and work. However, it is easier for that to be done when the aritcle is present than when it is not. Also, I for one would like to see Religious persecution by Jews done properly and in keep-able fashion (as is not currently the case, even with my own edits). A page such as this may help to inspire and guide those who can do a good job with that one. --EMS | Talk 01:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and merge in Persecution_of_non-Muslims. Also keep other articles in this series. the wub "?/!" 15:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but with the reservation that we should take a decision that the persecution by... articles should either all stay or all go. DJ Clayworth 16:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• (user has less than 50 edits) Keep Unlike ceratin other articles created by IrishPunkTom as a smokescreen for religious bigotry, this article started out well researched and well sourced, and shows real potential to be a proper and NPOV article dealing with the religious persecution of non-Muslim faiths in Muslim lands and Muslim religious doctrines.Existentializer 16:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Why the constant Personal Abuse toward me? I've only seen your name on the two VFD's before. Why is Religious persecution by Jews considered "religious bigotry", yet Religious persecution by Muslims "a proper and NPOV article". If you know so much about the history of the Jews, can't you help NPOV of the Jewish one? --Irishpunktom\ 17:17, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • I am not involved in any "personal abuse" towards you. I do however, after reading the versions of the other two articles which you created and after reviewing your talk page and your edit history, feel that you have a strong enough bias and that you are not behaving within Misplaced Pages policy. The two pages you have created are violations of NPOV and WP:POINT as referenced by Jayjg, while this article deals with something that is a very REAL phenomenon today as well as in the past. Existentializer 18:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I have a feeling that if we delete one and we keep another it will mess up the whole point of the religious persecution series.Heraclius 17:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but I don't really see any true persecution in the article, other than the bit on Iraq in the 1940's. Needs better organization. --Bayyoc 18:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic POV magnet. SlimVirgin 18:10, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. There is religious persecution by people from all walks of life. I initially wanted to vote keep, but it's highly unnecessary, IMO. --Thorns Among Our Leaves 18:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • True, but only the Koran is replete with verses like 5:51 in the mix. Religious persecution under Islam is a matter of state policy, which begs a significant distinction and is worthy if note and NPOV study.Existentializer 18:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, but this article is begging for controversy and vandalism. If there were a way to possibly clean this up to deter as much controversy as possible... I change my vote to abstain. Thorns Among Our Leaves 18:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • To say that ONLY the Koran makes statements like 5:51 is a generalization and is not accurate. What did Jesus mean when he said "If you are not with me, then you are against me"? Have you read of the Israelite's campaigns against their neighbors? Making statements like "only the Koran" suggest that you have some beef against Muslems, thus diluting the arguement to keep the article, which I support as long as it is historically accurate.--Bayyoc 19:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah, the wonderful mistranslation and taking out of context. Try this link with regard to that verse; the Vulgate version is even better but you have to be able to read Latin. And just FYI, the translation of that verse is HEAVILY debated since the same verse in Mark reads the other way: "For whoever is not against us is on our side." On the other hand, the Koran verse stands without question in its own context.Existentializer 19:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Precisely my point! This article is a lightning rod for controversy. If it is to be kept, there surely has to be some way to reduce this factor to avoid silly squabbling like this. Thorns Among Our Leaves 19:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Fine. I admit I was too lazy to look the verse up, but my paraphrase isn't that far off and the context seems the same. The point of both 5:51 and Jesus' statement is that there is only one way to salvation and, frankly, I don't see the problem with 5:51 in that it reserves the punishment of sinners to Allah. Not one of the three religions is innocent of bloodshed and if you have articles about Christian and Jewish attrocities, then you are obligated to examine Islam as well. If there ever were Christian, Jewish, or Muslem attrocities against other religions (and there certainly were), you are obligated to to examine them. The "Persecution by..." series seems legitimate. If the content of the articles needs cleaned up, then clean them up, but I don't see how you can justify deleting them just because someone might get offended by them.--Bayyoc 19:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete For the same reasons as I gave, for deleting "Religious persecution by Jews." I will jus copypast those reasons here: "The name of the article is not encyclopedic. Something like: “Religious persecution in Israel” could get an entry, but for sure not this. It is simply a generalization of an ethnic group, and the support of a POV, the POV being that, an ethnic group is more than a social construct, all this, in the articles name alone. I think there should be appropriate rules here in Misplaced Pages, on what is an encyclopedic entry, this will spare us all the trouble of having to vote the deletion of articles that should not exist in the first place. This sort of article will only get answered by similar articles(I just hope they don't already exist), which the subject, and probably the aim, will be generalization. There is a distinction between directly criticizing a group of people, and criticizing an aspect... If I write an article like: “Religious persecution under king David's reign” or something such, I could write an encyclopedic article. I could of course, as well, write something like: “Religious persecution under Judaism.” While this seems to be about the same thing as the article voted for deletion, it is not. In the same token, I could write an article, like; “Religious persecution under Islam.” This will be an encyclopedic name, but not: “Religious persecutions by Muslims,” or even more direct: “Religious persecution by Arabs” (I'm making the comparison, because being a “Jew,” is not only being part of a religion, but as includes the ethnic group.) But I could write: “Religious persecutions under Arabic regimes.” It is permitted to write about an aspect, or a system, etc. but not to generalize directly. Guilt by association is simply not encyclopedic. One way of knowing if a name for an article like this is encyclopedic, is to wonder if when using the name to criticize, it would be considered as a generalization. Having said all this, I think that the problem is not only with the name, but what the name could permit to write in the article, in this cases. We can not write with such a subject(the name of the article/subject), a real NPOV article, so it will be unwiki, and it's existence will inevitably lead to failure." Fadix 20:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Change vote: Keep, but change the the name of the article: This article is much more worked around than the other, and a name like: "Religious persecution under Islamic rules" would rightly fit the content of the article. Fadix 21:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • You say: One way of knowing if a name for an article like this is encyclopedic, is to wonder if when using the name to criticize, it would be considered as a generalization, but you suggest that Religious persecutions under Arabic regimes would be a valid title, which is inconsistent because the latter title is also a generalisation. You fail to give a reason why such generalisations should be avoided. Obviously, the article with a title like Religious persecution by Muslims does not imply that all muslims persecute all the time, merely that at some point in time group(s) was(were) persecuted by Muslims in a manner which warrants an encyclopedic article. Quite frankly, I don't understand the point you are trying to make I suspect that there is none. -Dv 20:45, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I changed my vote, as for your argument, I think I was clear enough in my answer in the other articles vote for deletion. Fadix 21:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Strong KEEP I just applied an edit to the article. I hope it provides some clarity and more concise thought than the original. I was initially confused by the title (I thought the article was dealing with issues concerning the persection OF Muslims) but after reading it several times and also the comments here I applied an extensive edit to it. It lacks some information concerning internacine persecution of various Muslim factions. I only hope it might be helpful in deciding the issue. And to illustrate that constructive critisism is usually helpful in expanding the Misplaced Pages, whereas derision and obfuscation of the issue almost never is. Hamster Sandwich 00:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unless substantially revised with historiographical citations. El_C 01:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• weak Keep per my vote in Persecution by Jews. Together with DJ Clayworth, I agree that these should all stay or all go. Until policy is sorted out, I default to keeping all articles in this series. Xoloz 03:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Handle persecution according to the religion of the victims, because it's more salient than the religion of the perpetrating regime. Grouping by persecutors is problematic because their motivations are not necessarily religious (the regime may not have an organized religion) and those responsible may actually be a more diverse body of powerful individuals, both in terms of religious and other interests. --Michael Snow 03:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Revolución 04:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Revolucion has voted "delete" on Religious persecution by Muslims and Religious persecution by Jews; on the other hand, he has eagerly promised to expand the Religious persecution by Christians article. I agree that the latter could have been a great article and should have been expanded, but I question the motivation of a bourgeois playtime "revolutionary" who thinks only one religious group can commit religious persecution. I would discount this vote as bad faith. Babajobu 08:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)