Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:57, 23 July 2012

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: Interfaith Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Islam Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 April 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Edited Misleading bernard lewis Quote

The full Bernard Lewis quote has been provided to correct the partial misleading quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.29.197.150 (talk) 21:16, October 14, 2006‎ (UTC)

Why not state what dhimmi means nowadays?

Dhimmi is a non muslim subjecting to the idears of a muslim. Dhimmitude is the behaviour of a non muslim subjecting to the idears of muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.125.155.60 (talk) 07:51, November 28, 2006 (UTC)

Discrimination

Adding the discrimination category and side-bar implies that "Dhimmitude" is real. But from the article we can see that Dhimmitude is at best a controversial concept and at worst a myth. We can't treat it as fact.VR _talk 03:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

What you say is demonstrably false. For instance, religions other than Islam are not permitted in Saudi Arabia. See Freedom_of_religion_in_Saudi_Arabia. Consider Tomorrow's Pioneers, a television show produced by Hamas that teach children to hate Jews. Read the article Persecution of Christians and pay particular attention to the section on persecution by Muslims and Muslim nations. People are still killed by government officials and by mobs for converting from Islam to other religions. Shall I go on? Is any of this not proof of discrimination? None of this is a "myth" as stated by Bernard Lewis. Besides, Lewis was talking about the status of HISTORICAL dhimmi, not present. This article isn't particularly concerned with the case of historical dhimmis. -- Frotz(talk) 09:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Your above justification is purely WP:OR. Few reliable sources, if any, consider Saudi laws to be an example of dhimmi. Not to say that historically dhimmis weren't discriminated against (they were, they couldn't carry arms etc.), but this article is about a politically motivated neologism, not actual history.VR _talk 18:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that it's OR to look at other Misplaced Pages articles for my justification? Look at the article for Bat Ye'or. There is a quote from Robert Spencer linking the two terms of "dhimmitude" and "discrimination". Put the two terms into Google and see what you find. What more proof do you need? -- Frotz(talk) 20:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Frotz, your arguments have no basis in[REDACTED] policy. You can neither rely on google, or other[REDACTED] article to make assertions on content. The term dhimmitude is controversial and disputed by scholars. Thus we can't treat it as fact.VR _talk 13:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Something being controversial and disputed is no reason to pretend it doesn't exist. -- Frotz(talk) 14:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is based on verifiability only. If something is disputed amongst reliable sources, its existence is far from certain, as far as[REDACTED] is concerned.VR _talk 16:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that "Islamophobia", which Vice regent added to the article, is just as controversial a "political neologism" as Dhimmitude. Shrigley (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that point was made quite some time ago when the criticism section was added. -- Frotz(talk) 21:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind adding discrimination in the See Also section, like I added Islamophobia there.VR _talk 16:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Secondary sources coupling dhimmitude with discrimination

Some people want secondary sources that couple dhimmitude with discrimination. Here are some:

• This one is particularly interesting because it comes from an islamic perspective.
• A book.

I will add these references to the article shortly.

-- Frotz(talk) 21:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand this revert. These sources appear reliable for their use here: Mark Durie, for example, is a scholar of comparative theology. The Jewish Virtual Library, we might want to treat with more caution, because it is a tertiary source. However, Robert Spencer has a master's in religious studies and is a widely published author on Islam. It isn't clear what criteria Altetendekrabbe will accept for inclusion of the discrimination sidebar. Just because something is "controversial" does not mean that it should be removed.

Also, bear in mind that the core contention behind the term - that there was systemic discrimination against non-Muslims in Muslim lands - is not clearly refuted to the extent that it isn't controversial; in other words, "Dhimmitude" is not a fringe view. The criticism of this term seems to be that its use for modern-day policy debates is "Islamophobic", but this criticism does not address the issue of whether treatment of Dhimmis was discrimination. Finally, the threatening tone ("if you dare") is not helpful. I have restored the sidebar. Shrigley (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

none of these sources are reliable. you cannot use[REDACTED] to claim that spencer or durie are reliable. take it to rs/n if you don't believe me.-- altetendekrabbe  22:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe you that these authors may be considered reliable or unreliable depending on context, such as whether they are writing in their area of expertise. However, we are using them to source their own views and usage of the term, rather than to make authoritative statements about history (which in any case they would appear to be qualified to make). However, claims of discrimination are by their nature subjective: as there are people who deny Dhimmitude, there are people who deny that gay bashing exists (in fact, there is probably overlap between the two groups). Yet the article on gay bashing has the discrimination sidebar. Because you don't offer any policy-based rationale for removing the sidebar, substituting insults ("blatant tag-teaming", "moronic sources") for any attempt to compromise, you are in no position to continue reverting, and I advise you to stop edit-warring immediately. Shrigley (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Most of the above sources are unreliable. If we are using them to source their own views, then we should use these sources in their own articles.

Note that I have offered a rationale for removing the sidebar. That is that dhimmitude is a controversial concept, not a fact.VR _talk 14:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It is important to remember that the word "dhimmitude" was coined to describe an otherwise unnamed or poorly-described phenomenon. I have a hard time believing that dhimmitude cannot be a fact when it's very clearly demonstrable that the aformentioned phenomenon does in fact exist. -- Frotz(talk) 22:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Mark Durie and his book "The Third Choice: Islam, dhimmitude and freedom" don't show any reliability. The author is a not a historian, nor employed to teach history or a similar subject at a university. Deror books isn't an academic publisher. If Frotz, or anyone else, wants to use Durie, the onus is on them to show the reliability of Durie.VR _talk 14:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I already provided scholarly source for this claim--Shrike (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The source you provided can stay. But Durie must go.VR _talk 12:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

A tag questioning Durie's reliability was removed without explanation. Can users please discuss their edits on the talk page?VR _talk 21:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Article is about dhimmitude, not dhimmi

This article is about the neologism dhimmitude, not about the historical concept of dhimmi. If you have something to add to the historical concept of dhimmi, please to go to dhimmi. Not here.

This source for example is not discussing dhimmitude. So the sentence "In modern usage, dhimmitude refers to discrimination against non-Muslims, particularly in regions where a majority of the residents are Muslim" is not supported by the source.VR _talk 13:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Unifying second and third leading paragraphs

It seems to me that the second and third paragraphs in the lead say pretty much the same thing. I think they ought to be unified. In particular, the second (final) sentence in the third looks a little weird. The first sentence is "In modern usage, dhimmitude refers to discrimination against non-Muslims particularly in regions where a majority of the residents are Muslim." and then the second "It also refers to discrimination of Jews and treating them like second class citizens." Is the second sentence really necessary? The cite that went along with it is just fine. -- Frotz(talk) 10:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem that this statement is disputed so I added bunch of scholarly references if you want to rephrase it differently I have no objection--Shrike (talk) 10:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't the first sentence take care of that given that a set containing all Jews is a subset of a set containing all non-Muslims? -- Frotz(talk) 10:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The encyclopedia talk specifically about Jews but other sources talk in general for example from "Negating the Legacy of Jihad in Palestine"

Collectively, these ‘obligations’ formed the discriminatory system of dhimmitude imposed upon non-Muslims—Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus, and Buddhists—subjugated by jihad.

--Shrike (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Is Bostom a reliable source?

Andrew Bostom is not a reliable source. Can you give the quote from "Anti-Semitism in the Arab World", Encyclopedia of Race and Racism? VR _talk 12:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Bostom was printed is scholary journal by scholarly press house--Shrike (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

From the encyclopedia

Manifestations of anti-Semitism erupted in the Arab world during the late twentieth century. However, discrimination against Jews has relegated them to second-class status under Arab hegemony (“dhimmitude”) since the successful uniting of the tribes in the Arabian peninsula by Muhammad (570–632) in the sixth century.

Thanks for the quote. I wanted to confirm it was the same one I found here.

A look at Bostom's article shows that it too contains the same Islam-bashing as is characteristic of other articles authored by Bostom. Bostom is a pretty questionable source, because of his articles contain a high level of Islamophobia.VR _talk 15:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You seem to cite a policy which advises cautious use of publications "widely acknowledged as extremist", something you have not proven about Bostom's writings. In addition, Misplaced Pages's policy on living persons applies to talk pages. Your unfounded description of Bostom as having "strongly Islamophobic views" and of being "characteristic" "Islam-bashing" is seriously defamatory, and you should retract it. Shrigley (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I have edited my comments to critique Bostom's works, not Bostom himself. A previous discussion showed a consensus against using Bostom as a source. We can go back to WP:RSN if you wish.VR _talk 15:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all, RSN makes it clear that it offers second opinions, and that its answers are not official policy. Although some editors want official judgments that "this source is "un/acceptable for use all the time", RSN regulars will tell them that the reliability of the source depends on context and what claim it is being used to cite. Second, the relevant guideline is WP:SELFCITE, because we are citing Bostom not on Islamic history, which was the topic on the RSN discussion, but on his own use of the word "Dhimmitude". This is one of the permitted uses of "questionable sources" and non-experts. So, although Bostom is a topical expert and you haven't proven that his works are "extremist", it wouldn't matter for this article if they were. Shrigley (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Bostom's "topical expert" is related to biology/medicine. Whereas talking about historical status of non-Muslims in Muslim societies requires expertise in Islamic history, Jewish history etc.VR _talk 20:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I could be misunderstanding this policy, but isn't WP:SELFCITE applicable only to[REDACTED] users who are citing themselves in the articles? Are you Andrew Bostom?VR _talk 21:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I meant WP:SELFPUB, which is actually a policy, not a guideline (even stronger). The principle remains that this argument about whether Bostom is an expert or not is moot. He is being cited on his own usage of the word. Shrigley (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB says "it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source". So you can't use it to make claims about Islamic history. Also, you gotta attribute (i.e. "Bostom says..."). Finally, they should primarily be used in their own articles. I have nor problem moving the citation to Andrew Bostom.VR _talk 00:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

This a moot dispute there are plenty of scholars that tell a same thing for example This scholarly article says the following:

In Islam, freedom of faith conceded to others applies only to Jews and Christians, but it is a limited freedom and

attached to the lower legal status of dhimmitude, or believers viewed as inferior to Muslims. By modern legal standards this is a violation of the human rights-based freedom of faith, rather than a variety of tolerance as commonly seen

--Shrike (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Saying the same thing as a another reliable source, doesn't make a source reliable. If you have other reliable sources, then use them instead of the unreliable one.

Note that your above link displays only the abstract and not the quote you have written here.VR _talk 20:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem I will use this source too.The quote is contained in full version of the article.--Shrike (talk) 06:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Shrike, I would like to cooperate with you. Saying you will use this source "too" is just unfair. I recognize that some of the sources you are using are reliable, and I support their inclusion. In return, I want you to refrain from using the unreliable sources.VR _talk 23:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Criticism in the lede

Criticsm of the term belongs in the lede, as the lede is to reflect the overall views of the subject. The Lewis views should not be removed from the lede, nor should they be misrepresented. Lewis clearly calls it the neologism a "myth", so we're essentially representing his views on wikipedia.VR _talk 15:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Lewis does not call Dhimmitude a "myth" in the way that you have treated Dhimmitude, where "myth" means "completely baseless fantasy". His use of the word myth seems to be more academic and nuanced, where the word describes a narrative that is crafted to teach some contemporary moral. He definitely does not say that allegations of "Dhimmitude" are groundless, so our plucking of the word "myth" out of context is a distortion of Lewis's words. I attempted to include Lewis's criticism in the lead - which is what you wanted - while crafting a balance between brevity and misrepresentation. If we cannot maintain this balance, then it is better not to include him in the lead paragraph at all. Shrigley (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

If you would like to propose wording that would call dhimmitude a "myth" in an academic way, I'm all ears. But please don't remove the word.

You're right that it doesn't belong in the first paragraph. Looking at Israel and the apartheid analogy, another ridiculous neologism, we should dedicate the first paragraph on explaining the neologism, and the second paragraph can discuss the criticism.VR _talk 20:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the word "myth" as it appears in the source. If you can find another way of using that, without white-washing what Lewis says, go right ahead. I've also moved the criticism out of the leading paragraph.VR _talk 23:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Low-quality source?

Is this source reliable? Maybe. The website is run by National Civic Council, a socially conservative political movement. It doesn't seem scholarly at all. But it is not questionable like Bostom.

Low-quality sources are acceptable, but I'm worried that once we allow them, the article could be flooded with references to dhimmitude from all over the internet.VR _talk 21:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

There shouldn't be much to fear from being flooded by a laundry list of references as long as we limit the list to the top five or so most meaningful ones and not introducing any new ones unless there's something profoundly new being said. -- Frotz(talk) 02:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Define "top" in "top five". Top is terms of quality of source?VR _talk 04:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Top five of "low quality" tempered with uniqueness of the content. Something not being scholarly shouldn't disqualify it. For instance, a source more interested in news, even if politically biased, can be a valid source because they more frequently talk about how a term is actually used by Joe Blow. -- Frotz(talk) 21:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

There's no objective way of determining "uniqueness", nor does any[REDACTED] policy refer to it. On the other hand, we can judge the reliability of a source, and WP:V regards reliability as a good thing. Scholarly sources are usually not written by Joe Blows.VR _talk 15:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

How about some sort of measure of notability? Something important to remember is that the Joe Blows are the force behind the evolution of language, not scholars. That why Latin turned into the Romance languages while Latin proper stayed the domain of scholars. Suppose we give more weight to the people who's usage of the term has become the most popular. -- Frotz(talk) 02:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Protection needed?

This article has been the subject of a complaint at WP:AN3. Evidently some reverting is still going on. How would people feel about two weeks of full protection? If that seems too drastic, would the people who have reverted in the last 48 hours be willing to consider waiting for consensus on the talk page? I see that there was some discussion, but I don't see people waiting for support before they revert. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Much of the heat appears to have been quelled by the actions of Shrike bringing forth new reference material. I have a question going in Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard‎ on a reliability question. Two weeks protection would be a bit too drastic. There doesn't appear to be too much rancor going on now that Altetendekrabbe seems to have cooled off. -- Frotz(talk) 02:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually its Frotz who made 5 reverts in a span of 24 hours to the article. The "heat" will be "quelled" when users learn to talk on this page instead of just revert all the time.VR _talk 04:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup POV stuff

In the interest of cleaning up this article and removing the {{npov}} tag, let's discuss what is still non-neutral about this article. -- Frotz(talk) 22:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

the sources used to justify the discrimination bar either fail wp:rs or are misrepresented. let start with mark durie. according to the conclusion at the rs/n you need to provide evidence that durie has "published elsewhere on this subject with academic publishers or in peer-reviewed journals, and that other scholars of the subject take his work seriously." durie has no such academic publications on the subjects. hence, durie has to go before this discussion can proceed.-- altetendekrabbe  09:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I already provided scholarly sources--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

i will take care of your sources and how you used them later. first, durie has to go.-- altetendekrabbe  09:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's start from the top of the article. It looks like two journal articles, neither by Durie, are being used to justify the discrimination label. One of these is by Phillip Perlmutter and the other is by David Kopel in the George Mason Civil Rights Journal. I noticed on your talk page that you said you have obtained a copy of the Permutter article. Are you able to share its text with us? In any case, I will see if I can read them at the local university library. Durie doesn't appear until much later in the article. Given the two aforementioned articles are from traditional scholarly journals, I expect there will not be a problem in accepting them as reliable. -- Frotz(talk) 10:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

first, durie should be removed from the text. it failed at the rs/n. then i'll go through the kopel.-- altetendekrabbe  10:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

He is reliable on his own views.And his view is notable enough as it reported by WP:RS--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

How much of the article relies on Durie's writings? -- Frotz(talk) 10:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

he *failed* at rs/n. durie and others ruin wp:balance and wp:npov. if he stays the npov-tag stays as well.-- altetendekrabbe  11:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that, at least not yet. I just want to know how much of the article depends on what Durie wrote? Knowing that can tell us how much mucking about we'll have to do. I don't believe we need to rely upon him for the lead paragraph or for the notion that dhimmitude is a form of discrimination. Can you share with us Perlmutter's article? -- Frotz(talk) 11:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

perlmutter is misrepresented. he mentions the word "dhimmitude" *only once* amongst a bunch of neologisms that he apparently is *critical* of. he does not treat the term "dhimmitude" at all, nor does he give any source of its origin. the fact is: "dhimmitude" is mentioned RANDOMLY in a paragraph. to use perlmutter as source here is a product of either extreme editorial incompetence or outright misrepresentation in order to push a pov. i will send a copy to proper editors when i'll take the person who included and misrepresented perlmutter to an appropriate noticeboard. now, are you going to remove durie or not?-- altetendekrabbe  11:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I want to see for myself what Perlmutter and Kopel had to say. It looks like I'll have to wait until Monday to get to the library because it's closed Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays during the summer. I generally agree with you that Durie should be removed, but I do not agree with removing the connection between dhimmitude and discrimination. The connection is obvious. A scholar saying that would suffice. Something like a newspaper or news magazine article saying it would also suffice. -- Frotz(talk) 12:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyone here claim that he not reliable to his own views?And we don't cite him anyhow but we cite the book review are you saying that book review is not correct?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I have added another book review from scholarly source.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

i've removed durie as he clearly fails wp:rs. deville's defence of durie does not belong in this article either, and constitutes wp:coatrack. i'm pretty sure there are zillions of others who either ignore or dismiss durie as a loon (his nonsensical allegations about "widespread capitulation to muslim demands" and so on are pretty idiotic). he is controversial and cannot in any sense provide a npov on the subject. clearly we have another case of cherry picking. now, i'll proceed with kopel if we agree that we're finished with the durie nonsense.-- altetendekrabbe  02:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted, you you removed two high quality sources just because you don't like it.If you think its cherry picking you are welcome to add additional material to solve this problem.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

well, then the npov-tag stays.-- altetendekrabbe  09:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Your comment included a statement or statements about editors, not article content. Per WP:NPA and WP:TPYES, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I will be happy to read and respond to comments that refer only to article content.

durie *failed* the rs/n. it is pretty obvious from the reviews *you* added that durie is infact a highly controversial author who sees "capitulation to muslim demands" everywhere.. -- altetendekrabbe  09:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Your comment included a statement or statements about editors, not article content. Per WP:NPA and WP:TPYES, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I will be happy to read and respond to comments that refer only to article content.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Your accusation of Shrike engaging in coatracking is frivolous. The coatrack template at {{Coat rack}} defines that as "This article primarily may relate to a different subject, or to only one aspect rather than the subject as a whole.". In other words, it's a special case of not sticking to the subject. The subject here is very narrow: a neologism that describes discrimination against non-Muslims in the present day. We're not talking about historical dhimmi laws. That's for the dhimmi article. These coats you accuse Shrike of hanging are actually evidence to support the notion that 1) dhimmitude is a real phenomenon and 2) that the phenomenon is discrimination. I tried to reach out to you civilly. Rather than continuing to respond in kind, you spat venom again. I've almost lost patience with you. Now think carefully. Do you want to sit down, talk sensibly, and offer proof of your assertions? I'm not sure you are. -- Frotz(talk) 10:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

No, what the quotes actually show - though out of context - is that some people in their anti-Muslim zeal came up with a derogatory "scare term" for political (and probably financial, scaring people sells books) reasons.VolunteerMarek 12:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

"for political (and probably financial, scaring people sells books) reasons" (Volunteer Marek) You are wrong in implying that selling books is the only financial reasons for spreading derogatory or fearmonguering ideas. There are people and organisations that give money directly. See Fear, Inc. The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America, Center for American Progress, 2011-08-26, Chapter 1: Donors to the Islamophobia network. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

the term is highly controversial, closely related to conspiracy theories of bar ye'or, and moronic fantasies of many low-grade fringe "scholars". of course there is discrimination against non-muslims, no doubt about it. but the term "dhimmitude" is not what mainstream academia uses for this phenomena. renowned scholars of islam, like bernard lewis or mark choen and others, call this term "islamophobic" or a "myth" and so on. the present this term as a neutral term to describe "non-muslim discrimination" is a blatant violation of neutral point of view. firstly, durie has to go. if not, we can take this to an appropriate administrative venue. -- altetendekrabbe  12:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

To me, this is like having the noun "snowboard" for a millenia, then someone coming up with the verb "snowboarding" and having it challenged as pov, though it is describing what people have done for a millenia. Student7 (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It is. Except that the creator of the word "snowboarding" would also have one nephew killed by a snowboard, and is claiming that Winter Olympic Games are satanic. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. -- Frotz(talk) 22:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the english language is not my mother tongue and I have never snowboarded. It might be better to look at Bat Ye'or and Eurabia pages, which current versions are not so bad. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup POV stuff commentary

With regard to this . First, I think it's pretty obvious to any outside observer that Frotz, Estlandia and a few others are tag teaming. But no, I am not - I just noticed these articles and saw the nonsense that's going on. So don't make unsupported accusations. Second, the burden of proof is actually on those who want to *add* contentious material - especially if its based on dubious sources - hence, if the discussion is on going, then default should be "remove".VolunteerMarek 16:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

No, you did not “just notice these articles” but found them whilst willfully stalking my edits , , with the aim of flaming a new edit war. You are following my edits to revert them or oppose me, today seen here - . Antagonizing me is all you're really up to in Islam-related articles. Hounding is a serious offense. Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 16:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Give me a fucking break. You're very obviously tag-teaming with several other users and you have the chutzpah of accusing me stalking you? That really takes some gall. I noticed these articles because of the discussion on Malik Shabazz's talk page (which I have on my watchlist). Seriously, drop the nonsense, it's pretty transparent.

As to Anton Maegerle (where I simply asked a question on the talk page), you might remember a little conversation we had with regard to your recommendation of folks like Carl O. Nordling as "good reading" (for those following along, Nordling praised the work of Holocaust deniers like Robert_Faurisson - some of your new found teammates might want to look into that) . Obviously I have had Maegerle on my watchlist since at least then if not earlier. Since you were apparently accusing me of using Maegerle as a source almost exactly a year ago, (though I can't remember where I supposedly did that) you damn well know that, so your protestations that I'm stalking your edits are plain ol' bad faithed bullshit.VolunteerMarek 17:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

What dubious source we talking about.I didn't found in reference dubious sources--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Durie.VolunteerMarek 17:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Durie is not cited but rather WP:RS about his book.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not an RS but rather a (very hysterical) opinion piece. Opinion pieces are not RS. The last sentence in that section reads like a total copyvio though I don't have access to that source. At any rate, it uses Misplaced Pages voice to present a person's opinion as fact.VolunteerMarek 17:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The first source is a book review in respectable Journal so its WP:RS in general scholary sources don't need an attribution but we can add it if you insist on this.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same thing? What review in what respectable Journal? Or are you talking about Reviews in Religion & Theology, which would be a journal? Do you have access to this article? VolunteerMarek 18:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

There are two sources about the book both came from scholars and yes I have access to them.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The first source is essentially a hysterical opinion piece. As far as the second source goes, could you email it to me? VolunteerMarek 18:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

How do you come to such stange conclusion this book review written in Australian journal by academic so its WP:RS.Email me and then I will send it to you.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek had zero edits to Dhimmi before reverting the changes exactly three hours after my edit. And of course he has no edits to Anton Maegerle so his all story ('had this in my watchlist long time ago') has obviously been made up. Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 17:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

What is made up? That I've used Maegerle before as a source? I don't know, that was what you said a year ago. And it was about a year ago that we discussed Maegerle on your talk page. Or is the part about you recommending Nordling's article in a Holocaust denial journal made up? No, that's pretty well documented as well.

Or am I making it up that I saw a discussion about the article Dhimmi on Malik's talk page? Hmmm. I guess I could make it up, but you know very well that I have Malik's page watchlisted as I've conversed with him many times in the past.

And let me ask you this - have you ever made edits to an article that previously you had zero edits on? Somehow I'm guessing the answer is "yes".

So what is it that I made up? Me thinks you're making up the fact that I made anything up, basically to draw attention away from your own tag teaming.VolunteerMarek 17:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Both of you please take it elsewere--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Pure nonsense. You had never ever edited the page on Anton Maegerle until today, no-one will count your previous supposed use of him as a source (whilst you where then (ZFI) merely reverting to the changes of a disturing sock puppeteering troll). You don't know who Maegerle is, you don't know much about dhimmi, you had zero previous edits to it until you took to revert my edits, you showed up here just to revert me in tandem with a disruptive user - that's what I call tag-teaming. Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 17:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

What is pure nonsense? That I've used Maegerle before as a source? I don't know, that was what you said a year ago. And it was about a year ago that we discussed Maegerle on your talk page. Or is the part about you recommending Nordling's article in a Holocaust denial journal made up? No, that's pretty well documented as well.

Or is it nonsense that I saw a discussion about the article Dhimmi on Malik's talk page? Hmmm. I guess it could be nonsense, but you know very well that I have Malik's page watchlisted as I've conversed with him many times in the past.

And let me ask you this - have you ever made edits to an article that previously you had zero edits on? Somehow I'm guessing the answer is "yes".

So what is it that is nonsense? Me thinks you're just calling stuff nonsense that isn't, basically to draw attention away from your own tag teaming.

And oh yeah, how exactly do you know that I "don't know much about dhimmi"? You can read my mind and see what's on my bookshelf or something? Please.

VolunteerMarek 17:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to let you derail what was so far a civil discussion on what to do about the POV objections. Therefore I'm splitting this chunk of text off into its own subsection. Please hold off editing until we have an actual agreement to make a change before you go off and possibly sabotage something. -- Frotz(talk) 18:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

step forwards

frotz removed durie which is huge step forwards. before that shrike wisely removed kopel as well, introducing bassam tibi. i dunno anything about tibi but i'll fetch a copy of the article and review it later. now, for the perlmutter source. as far as i can see the poor guy is misrepresented. he mentions the word "dhimmitude" *only once* amongst a bunch of neologisms that he apparently is *critical* of. he does not treat the term "dhimmitude" at all, nor does he give any source of its origin. the fact is: "dhimmitude" is mentioned randomly in an article that is skeptical about how different groups use their minority status to achieve political goals and similar subjects. he concludes by stating,

in short, while the country was more and more accepting of minorities and immigrants, the conceptual bases of prejudice and discrimination and the ways of ending bigotry and socio-economic group disparities were also changing – in the name of multiculturalism and diversity – and giving rise to new forms of intergroup misunderstandings, conflicts, and, yes, prejudices, chiefly over affirmative action, proportional representation, and group conscious justice.

to use this particular perlmutter source here is quite misleading on several grounds. the most important being that perlmutter is not interested in discussing "dhimmitude" at all.-- altetendekrabbe  13:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Based on the quote you put up there, it's quite clear that Perlmutter was talking about discrimination. How about quoting the section where he mentions dhimmitude? So what if he thinks of the people who use the word "dhimmitude" as playing a trump similar to the race card? The fact is that there is a connection. I'd rather see the whole article instead of taking your word for it. -- Frotz(talk) 13:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

well, not quite. he *really* does not give a damn about "dhimmitude". he mentions it because it's a neologism. if it's controversial or not, neutral or not, mainstream or not, he frankly doesn't seem to care. he mentions it in a list of neologisms in one paragraph. that's all. these has nothing to do with the main topic of his paper. anyway, i'll send a copy to a neutral editor.-- altetendekrabbe  13:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I have obtained a copy of the text. Here is where he mentions dhimmitude:

New words were coined to describe the particular fears, ... dhimmitude (discrimination and repression of non-Muslims by Muslim societies), heightism (against short people), ...

The deleted portions of that paragraph contain nothing more than a list of other isms and phobias. Going over that and the article as a whole, I see no evidence that he regarded that list with skepticism or indifference. The phrase "dhimmitude (discrimination and repression of non-Muslims by Muslim societies)" is all I need. -- Frotz(talk) 14:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

have to disagree. see my comments above. you cannot use this paper here, or in an article about heightism or whatever. this is not what is treated by perlmutter.-- altetendekrabbe  14:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

just noted that sidney h. griffith has another definition of the term. the article has to distinguish between the bat ye'orian definition and other definitions. perlmutter clearly uses bat ye'or's definition. rather to use perlmutter which is quite misleading, it's better to use bat ye'or as a source in the lead. in addition, cohen's and lewis' harsh criticism target bat ye'or as well. -- altetendekrabbe  16:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional sources were already brought.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• Tibi, Bassam (April 2008). "The Return of the Sacred to Politics as a Constitutional Law The Case of the Shari'atization of Politics in Islamic Civilization". Theoria.

• "Anti-Semitism in the Arab World". Encyclopedia of Race and Racism. Gale Group.

• Sidney H. Griffith (2010). The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque: Christians and Muslims in the World of Islam. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0691146284.

as i pointed out, griffith has another, more general definition, of "dhimmitude". one that does not relate directly to discrimination. now, can you please clearify how tibi defines "dhimmitude"?-- altetendekrabbe  19:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what your problem with Perlmutter is. He very clearly and succinctly defined dhimmitude as discrimination. -- Frotz(talk) 20:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

no, *he did not define anything*. he only uses bat ye'or's definition of the term, *and* he mentions it *randomly* in a list filled with several other neologisms. he does not discuss or treat the term (if it's controversial or not, mainstream or not, reliable or not and so on). it's quite dishonest to use perlmutter to define "dhimmitude". however, i found a book review by griffith. he discusses bat ye'or's use and definition of the term.-- altetendekrabbe  23:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

the text now distinguishes between the different definitions and uses of the term. bat ye'or's definition relates the term to discrimination, bernard lewis' to a myth, griffith's to the social conditions of dhimmis, and cohen's/fekete's/færseth's to islamophobia. if bat ye'or's definition warrants a discrimination bar then what about cohen's definition of the term? surely, if the discrimination-bar is warranted then the islamophobia-bar is justified as well. the npov is preserved either by removing the discrimination bar, or by adding the islamophobia-bar.-- altetendekrabbe  10:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

A problem: Bachir Gemayel was the first person to define and use "dhimmitude". Bat Yeor expanded on this. Cohen, Fekete, and Faerseth did not make independent definitions, but instead criticized Bat Yeor's definition. Can you provide me with a copy of Cohen paper so I can see for myself? -- Frotz(talk) 00:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

it was bat ye'or who lectured gemayel about "dhimmitude", according to herself. regarding cohen: i didn't add him so i don't have that paper. i can try to trace it up. or, even better: ask the editor who inserted cohen into the text. on the other hand, there are planty of sources linking "dhimmitude" to bat ye'or's conspiracy theories. -- altetendekrabbe  00:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Can we stop badmouthing Bat Ye'or already? The way you use the word "conspiracy theory" implies that what she has to say is false. Why is that? -- Frotz(talk) 01:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

(As far as I know) this is second time (with "The notion that Eurabia is false is nowhere near being universally accepted. The term "conspiracy theory" is a loaded term that implies falsehood and therefore is POV." in Talk:Eurabia) that you seem to imply that Bat Ye'or's eurabian thesis are not false. Could you explain yourself about that (but not here, rather in Talk:Eurabia)? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I already provided quote from relevant sources and that what the say.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

you are misrepresenting the sources, especially tibi and perlmutter. you removed griffith's definition of the term. suggest you revert yourself.-- altetendekrabbe  11:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

please show how?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Also I didn't removed anything Grifith its still present I only restored sourced information that you deleted--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

you removed *his definition of the term*! you removed content that is *relevant* to this article. the subject here is "dhimmitude" and not "dhimmi". again revert yourself.-- altetendekrabbe  12:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

What line or wording you want me to add?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

my version clearly distinguishes between the different versions of the term. it does not misuse/misrepresent perlmutter and tibi (see the discussion above). it's not about a single line. revert back to my version.-- altetendekrabbe  12:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You deleted perlmutter and tibi and failed to prove that they were misrepresented.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

i have both tibi and perlmutter, and yes, they are misrepresented/misused. i found a better source, a book review by griffith which discusses bat ye'or's use and deinition of the term. you removed this much more relevant source which discusses the term thoroughly. why? instead you added perlmutter who only mentions the term *randomly* in a list filled with several other neologisms...once! he does not discuss or treat the term (if it's controversial or not, mainstream or not, reliable or not and so on). it's quite dishonest to use perlmutter to define "dhimmitude". now, a question: how does tibi define "dhimmitude"?-- altetendekrabbe  12:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't removed anything but again what lines are missing in the article?It was already explained to you that perlmutter describe it as discrimination that more then enough.Please look above I have brought tibi quote from the article.And how do you know its misrepresnted if you even didn't checked the source?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok I have restored this line.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

On going tag team edit warring

Ok, this is really becoming obnoxious and a problem. The same three users are still tag-team reverting:

Frotz

Estlandia

Shrike

You guys are even doing it in the exact same order every time. And on top of that this is just blind reverting, without discussion, and it includes reverting completely innocuous edits like correcting the tense of a verb ("claim" to "claimed"). It appears to be just reverting for reverting sake, or perhaps, as a bad faithed attempt to bait a user into breaking 3RR.

Since you were already warned by an administrator over this behavior (User:Future Perfect at Sunrise) at WP:3RR, this has reached a point where sanctions should be considered.

As to the content of the dispute, there really is no need to have two different definitions of the term.VolunteerMarek 11:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

they are also misrepresenting and/or misusing the sources, making the matter worse.-- altetendekrabbe  11:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You and user:altetendekrabbe trying to censor relevant information with your edits from the article.There are no consensus for your edit, information is supported by high quality sources.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

you *clearly* don't have a clue. why didn't you take a look at my version before you reverted it? what fucking relevant information did i sensor? (i also provided better a source (griffith), and i added his definition of the term as well.) this just proves that you're involved in blind reverts and tag-teaming.-- altetendekrabbe  11:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Your comment included a statement or statements about editors, not article content. Per WP:NPA and WP:TPYES, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I will be happy to read and respond to comments that refer only to article content.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

When users are behaving badly and are gaming Misplaced Pages rules, it's pretty much impossible not to comment on editors. Your comment that "(you're) trying to censor relevant information" (whenever someone crises "censorship!" on a talk page, it's a pretty good bet they're POV-pushing and using "censorship!" as a cover) is itself a comment on editors. So either engage in discussion and drop that obstinate little template, or stop blind reverting and tag teaming.VolunteerMarek 12:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I comment on edits only if you want comment on editors there are relevant board to rise your concern but please be aware of WP:BOOMERANG--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually you don't. You just use that little template when you're called on your nonsense as a way of avoiding discussion. Not very good faithed of you.VolunteerMarek 22:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Biechler quotation removed

I've removed the following statement, which stood in the article with a defective reference for a long time:

The term was used in English as early as 1985 in a book review by Prof. James E. Biechler in the Journal of Ecumenical Studies, in which he praised Ye'or's work, commenting that "Perhaps the single most significant contribution of the author is her definition and development of the concept of 'dhimmitude'".<ref>James E. Biechler, review of The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam in Journal of Ecumenical Studies (Philadelphia). 1985?</ref>

This quotation is wrong. Biechler wrote those words, but apparently he didn't write them in 1985. They are from his 1998 review of Ye'or's 1996 book The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam, not from his review of her earlier book The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam (which, moreover, he reviewed in 1988, not in 1985). Given the fact that the person who added the quotation evidently didn't look up the original review – or why else the question mark behind the reference? – I suppose he took it from the publisher's blurb on the back of a later reprint of the first book , which might explain the confusion.

I could have just fixed the reference, but since the whole point of the sentence seemed to be the statement about the early use in 1985, I thought it better to remove it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

there are other sources that are being misused as well.-- altetendekrabbe  21:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Likewise for the Perlmutter source, which altetendkrabbe sent to me (I asked him for it), and which, of course, I'll gladly sent to anyone else who wants it - the whole Perlmutter article is about something else (how prejudice has changed in the recent years) and "dhimmitude" is mentioned only once and in passing, in a context which does not support how the term is being used in this article. Perlmutter does not even indicate that he agrees with the usage. There really is no reason to have that source in the article.VolunteerMarek 22:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

i can provide tibi as well.-- altetendekrabbe  22:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't you think that Perlmutter would have said so if he disagreed with the definition? -- Frotz(talk) 22:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Perlmutter doesn't even discuss the term.VolunteerMarek 22:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

He described the term using the common definition. That's all that's needed. -- Frotz(talk) 22:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

No he didn't. And that source is not even closely about the term. Again, if anyone wants to check I'll send them the source. It's just a trick you've guys (the tag-team team) been pulling here.VolunteerMarek 22:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I already have the source. Stop it with this constant seeing of bogeymen and conspiracies where there aren't any. -- Frotz(talk) 22:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe at this point I should go with Shrike's tactic:

"Your comment included a statement or statements about editors, not article content. Per WP:NPA and WP:TPYES, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I will be happy to read and respond to comments that refer only to article content."

But I won't. So. Since you already have the source, I know that you know that the source has nothing to do with dhimmitude. So why are you insisting on including it in the article?VolunteerMarek 22:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

i have removed perlmutter and the tertiary source, as per the comment below. i didn't remove the line where perlmutter and the tertiary source were used. hence, no content is removed. however, in my opinion, tibi is being misused as well. i have also moved griffith, who discusses the bat ye'or's definition thoroughly, into the lead. thus, i removed bar ye'or's (un-sourced) definition from the first line of the lead, making it clear that the neologism has several distinct meanings.-- altetendekrabbe  23:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm an editor whose involvement was solicited on the basis that I spend most of my time dealing with reliability and sourcing issues. One thing I can see from the above, is that some editor in the past did not actually read sources they cited, in particular they did not say where they got the material, ie: they didn't cite the book jacket or online amazon blurb. In relation to sources which mention the topic in passing and do not substantially discuss the topic, these sources should probably not be used. (Substantive can be small, a paragraph in an introduction to the theoretical terrain can be substantive, but using the word in passing isn't). While I'd be happy to look over sources, I'm not available until Monday my time for that due to a conference. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

exactly.-- altetendekrabbe  23:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

improvements

the latest edits of user frotz are indeed an improvement, so much so that i removed the npov-warning-tag. i have also removed the misrepresentation of tibi by quoting him (page 98), re-arranged the lead a little (two sentences changing place, and pointing out the original definition of the term). the sources and their correct representation are now in order. my question regarding the discrimination-bar remains: if we allow the bar due to bat ye'or's definition of the term, then what about other definitions and criticisms? we could easily add the islamophobia-bar, political myth-bar (if it exists), conspiracy-bar and so and so forth. it seems that the term has many more meanings not covered yet.-- altetendekrabbe  10:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather not have a side-bar-o-rama going on here. Let's just stick with the discrimination one because that is the primary subject. I'm glad that we came to a friendly agreement for this article. I'm also glad you took my recent rearrangement so well. Thank you for the little tweaks and adjustments. -- Frotz(talk) 11:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

user shrike is now desperately trying to destroy the latest improvements by desperate edit warring. shrike's involvement on this article has been disruptive from the very beginning. misuse/misrepresentation of sources, sporadically tag-teaming with estlandia and so on. if this continues i'm afraid that an administrator action is needed.-- altetendekrabbe  10:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The crux Shrike's objection appears to be the inclusion of Anders Breivik's usage of the word. I agree with his view that it may be coatracking. At the very least, that paragraph should go in the criticism section and make mention of who was actually talking about Breivik's manifesto. -- Frotz(talk) 11:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, hold up, there's two separate issues here. One is Brevik's use of the term and the other is the side bar.

With regard to the first one, the source appears to be RS. So the question, as with other sources, is whether it just mentions Brevik's use in passing or does it actually use it in context.

With regard to the side bar. I think Altetendekrabbe is correct that the inclusion of the discrimination sidebar is somewhat gratuitous and pov, and that if we include that sidebar we should also include the "islamophobia" side bar and the "myths" sidebar (is there one?). The inclusion of the discrimination side bar is obvious pov because, in sources, the term is described as faulty, insulting, neologism reflecting anti-Muslim sentiment more often than it is described as a proper word reflecting discrimination towards non-Muslims. If anything the "islamophobia" side bar makes more sense then the "discrimination" one.VolunteerMarek 11:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Moving forward

I have collected most of the sources that is used in the article anyone can view them. There are several points I want to make.

• Brevik - The Dhimmitude only mentioned in scarce..Should it be used in the article.
• Perlmutter -The Dhimmitude only mentioned in scarce..Should his definition be used in the article.
• Tibi - how the best to present what tibi wrote?
• Encyclopedia of Race and Racism- I think their definition should be re-introduced as they talk about dhimmitude quite specifically.
• Durie book - dhimmitude the main topic of and is discussed in two sources , probably should be reintroduced in to the article as it relevant

Grifith have whole chapter about this should be introduced in to the article. --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Reversion

I reverted the article back to where Altetendekrabbe removed the POV tag. At that point it was clear there was significant agreement between both sides of this dispute. Let's scrap the rancor that happened just after that point. Now then, Altetendekrabbe, there seem to be two points of contention left. 1) Adding more sidebars and 2) removing Anders Breivik. I don't think we need any more sidebars. This article is relatively small and it wouldn't do to have it turn into a side-bar-o-rama. For removing Breivik, I see the point. I can go either way. -- Frotz(talk) 22:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

thanks again. regarding breivik: the source gives a full quote of him. if that's enough for inclusion, i really dunno. i don't have any strong opinions about this issue either. more comments are needed. regarding the sidebar issue i think a third opinion or a request for comment is needed. in my opinion, the page is better off without any sidebars. however, since the page now complies more or less to npov, it's not really a burning issue. i'll come back to it later on.-- altetendekrabbe  22:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I still think book reviews about durie should be included in the article as the sources talk specifically about this issue.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Also Tibi is misrepresented as he clearly use the word "inferior" in his writing and that dhimmutude is " this is a violation of the human rights-based freedom of faith" this should be fixed too.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

With regard to Durie I think we've reached consensus to keep it out.

With regard to Breivik - it's a reliable high quality source, it directly supports the text that is being included, it is obviously notable (the fact that breivik used the term and how he used it), and it is relevant. So I really don't see any reason for removal except some kind of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT

With regard to the side bar - the underlying problem is that the very subject of this article, "Dhimmitude" is a POV-loaded term itself, usually used by people with a particular ideology. Part of that ideology/POV is the view that Muslims always and everywhere discriminate against non-Muslims and that this discrimination is captured by this term. But once again - this is just a POV of a particular ideology. If this sidebar was text we could properly attribute it (so and so says that Dhimmitude reflects discrimination etc.) But with a sidebar we cannot do this. Since we cannot properly attribute a sidebar the only recourse is simply to remove it. This is the same as if someone tried to put an "Apartheid" side bar in the article on Israel or something - it'd be POV, just like it is here. In fact, given the generally fringe usage of the term, by fringe folks, an "Islamophobia" sidebark would make a ton more sense than the "Discrimination side bar".

VolunteerMarek 18:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus on that there at least on scholarly sources that specifically talks about dhimmitude.

Dhimmutude only mention in scarce in the whole article

The term is used by scholar not Grifith nor Tibi are fringe--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm having a bit of trouble understanding what you are saying. You seem to be intent on invoking "no consensus" (as in, "me and my buddies will keep on revert warring on this to the end") as a way of disrupting this article - essentially a version of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. As it happens, neither WP:IDON'TLIKEIT nor "consensus" (the policy explicitly says that consensus cannot be held hostage) trumps WP:NPOV and WP:RS which are not just policies but also fundamental pillars.

I didn't say anything about Grifith nor Tibi for now, and I certainly did not say these guys were fringe (if that is the meaning of your last non-grammatical sentence).VolunteerMarek 19:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You said that is was used only by fringe scholar which is entirely not true.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Please bother to read what I said again. I said no such thing.VolunteerMarek 19:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

@marek, i fully agree on that. there should be no bars. the discrimination-bar should not be present due to the reasons you menioned, while the islamophobia-bar would not be fair to people like griffith. i think the current version without any bars is the one that complies best with npov. my two cents. @frotz, is it ok for you that we go for rfc?-- altetendekrabbe  19:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

An Islamophobia sidebar in Dhimmitude would be akin to a "white people phobia" sidebar in Jim Crow or White supremacy. -- Frotz(talk) 23:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Uh... what? VolunteerMarek 23:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. "Leukophobia" didn't sound right, "leukoanthrophobia" is weirder still, and "crackerphobia" is a racist term itself. -- Frotz(talk) 01:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

As I already explained above, the problem is that the term "Dhimmitude" is itself a POV term. Which is why an Islamophobia side bar would make sense - AFAIK it's mostly (if not only) Islamophobes who use it. That's a completely different situation than "Jim Crow".VolunteerMarek 01:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Saying that only Islamophobes use the term would tend to presume that attacks on non-Muslims for being non-Muslims either doesn't exist or is extremely rare. In fact there are constant reports of attacks. The most common of these seem to be against Egyptian Copts. Furthermore, the term "Islamophobia" is POV because very valid criticism of Islam are frequently labeled as Islamophobia. -- Frotz(talk) 01:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it presumes nothing of the kind. These "attacks" whether real or imagined are a complete red herring to the usage of the term "Dhimmitude" by Islamophobes.VolunteerMarek 17:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

frotz, we are not discussing attacks on non-muslims by muslims...of course there are such attacks. we're discussing this neologism. as marek correctly points out, the term is highly controversial and disputed, especially the bat ye'orian definition of the term, which refers to discrimination. her definition is indeed faulty and insulting, ironically reflecting anti-Muslim sentiment more than muslim discrimination of non-muslims. hence, you find the charges of islamophobia. however, i suggest not to include the islamophobia-bar, nor the discrimination-bar. like i said earlier, the article complies best with npov without the bars at all. none of these bars are fair to griffith. let the readers read and judge by themselves.-- altetendekrabbe  08:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

This definition is used by other scholars like I pointed earlier.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Back to Breivik - I'm putting him back in unless someone can show that the source in question is not reliable.VolunteerMarek 17:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Nm, I see Frotz already put it back in. Thanks for that.VolunteerMarek 17:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Source only talks in scarce about Brevik and dhimmitude so its WP:UNDUE to use it.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you are trying to say.VolunteerMarek 17:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I say that there is a source cherry picking, as source is not about "‘Dhimmitude’" or status of dhimmis in muslim world but about Brevik conspiracy theory--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

just reverted shrike who is misrepresenting tibi again. if this continues i'll add the npov-tag again.-- altetendekrabbe  17:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Please stop removing sourced information "In Islam, freedom of faith conceded to others applies only to Jews and Christians, but it is a limited freedom and attached to the lower legal status of dhimmitude, or believers viewed as inferior to Muslims. By modern legal standards this is a violation of the human rights-based freedom of faith, rather than a variety of tolerance as commonly seen".Do you want to phrase it differently?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

@shrike, u r taking advantage of my 1-rr restriction. the *burden* is on *you* not me. u were reverted hence you're obliged to discuss as per wp:brd. revert yourself or i'll report you. and yes, the quote does not say *anything* about "inferior status". you are indulging yourself in original research, and the quote is misleading as it says nada about the situation in non-muslim regimes at that time. revert now.-- altetendekrabbe  17:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:BRD is not policy .Tibi explictly use the word "inferior".I don't understand what the problem?Please explain and suggest you own wording--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Shrike you are blatantly trying to game the 1rr restriction. You do this anymore and you'll most likely wind up with one yourself, if not an outright block.VolunteerMarek 18:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

And what it has to do with improving the article?That what talk page for.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Shrike is correct in that BRD is an essay, however WP:BURDEN is not, I suggest he meet it. 18:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I met it.Please explain what wrong?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

it seems that shrike is just unable to contribute without indulging in original research. his new line is still a misrepresentation. incredible.-- altetendekrabbe  08:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Please explain how its WP:OR as other user agree with me and stop with your unfounded accusation--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

not unfounded at all.-- altetendekrabbe  08:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Then either explain and prove it or strike it.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

i suggest you revert first as per guidelines. the burden is on you, and you have violated that policy over and over again.-- altetendekrabbe  09:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I violated anything I think you just WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't have the time right now to sift through what was done since my last revert. Let's just leave things alone for right now. Shrike, would you please put together a complete and coherent revision and present it here in the article talk rather than doing it piece by piece? -- Frotz(talk) 09:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a finished version but the problem that editors here don't want to explain what is exactly wrong and how it can be improved that just do blanket reverting.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

npov tag

I think the npov tag should remain on the article until all issues are resolved.VolunteerMarek 18:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes I agree.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

RoR

The RoR states "However, discrimination against Jews has relegated them to second-class status under Arab hegemony (“dhimmitude”) since the successful uniting of the tribes in the Arabian peninsula by Muhammad (570–632) in the sixth century. ".Please explaing what incorrect I used direct quote--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion

This neologism hasn't caught on outside discussion of Bat Ye'or's ideas, and some extremists who claim to be inspired by her. Therefore, redirect to her biography, explain the concept there - there is space enough. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This not true its used by scholars and other encyclopedias.For example

• Tibi, Bassam (April 2008). "The Return of the Sacred to Politics as a Constitutional Law The Case of the Shari'atization of Politics in Islamic Civilization". Theoria.
• "Anti-Semitism in the Arab World". Encyclopedia of Race and Racism. Gale Group.
• Sidney H. Griffith (2010). The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque: Christians and Muslims in the World of Islam. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0691146284.

--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

griffith's and tibi's definitions could easily be mentioned on bat ye'or's page as well. the encyclopedia is a tertiary source that uses someone else's definition. that's the reason why we should avoid the use of tertiary sources. in addition, there are not enough reliable secondary sources on this issue to justify this article. i think a merge is a good idea. clearly, the fact that the term has several distinct meaning makes this page susceptible to disputes about what bars to use and so on. this neologism is bat ye'or's invention and it belongs on her page. the ongoing development of her neologism, away from her use, should be included there as well.-- altetendekrabbe  11:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Grifith have the whole section in her book titled "Dhimmitude"--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand your post: the English is too poor. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Let me take a "wild" guess and suggest that Shrike means "Griffith has a whole section in her book titled 'Dhimmitude'". __meco (talk) 11:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This concept has been discussed by sources other than bat ye'or. Why do you state that "This neologism hasn't caught on outside discussion of Bat Ye'or's ideas" when this does not appear to be the case? Ankh.Morpork 11:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Griffith, who appears to be male, only has one brief mention in the introduction of The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque, not a section. We need a bit more than this to show that a neologism has entered the language. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Kindly look at P.17.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

if you search the term "dhimmitude" on isiknowledge.com you'll get 12 matches only. isiknowledge is one of the world's most prominent scientific search engines. all of them discuss "dhimmitude" in relation to bat ye'or. not griffith, not tibi but bat ye'or.-- altetendekrabbe  12:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

More blind reverts

I see that blind and unconstructive reverting is again happening on this page. These bits have now been repeatedly reverted back into the article, despite the fact that both are heavily ungrammatical broken English, without at least making some attempt at correcting them in the process.

Are you people not even reading what garbage you are pushing into the article?

To Shrike, who seems to be the main source of such material: I appreciate that English is evidently not your native language, and non-native speakers are generally quite welcome to contribute here, to the extent of their abilities. However, if your command of the language is so poor that you risk objectively degrading the quality of articles when editing them, it is crucial that you be aware of your limitations and seek to minimize the damage. Also, while there are many things people with less than perfect English can usefully do on Misplaced Pages, negotiating difficult details about NPOV and correct treatment of sources, in advanced fields of theoretical debate, is not one of them. If you risk disrupting a talk discussion because you can't make yourself appropriately understood or because you fail to understand the finer points others are making, you should consider focussing your work on less linguistically demanding topic areas.

To prevent further damage to the text and further occasions for reverting, I strongly recommend you make it a habit of first proposing all substantial additions of text on the talk page and seek help copyediting them if necessary. If you won't do this voluntarily, I might consider imposing it as a formal restriction under ARBPIA. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Religion articles
• Low-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• Start-Class Islam-related articles
• Low-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles