Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bless sins (talk | contribs) at 06:14, 31 December 2007 (he is not a sock puppet of anyone who has already voted. none of his alleged sockpuppets/masters have voted). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Islam and domestic violence

Islam and domestic violence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

We don't have an article on Christianity and domestic violence, Judaism and domestic violence, Buddhism and domestic violence, Hinduism and domestic violence, or any others that I can see. This article is a POV fork of materials that could be better discussed in more generalized articles (and many of them already are, so merging is probably unnecessary). By lumping together a large number of disparate phenomena under the banner of "Islam and domestic violence," this article violates our prohibition on original research by synthesis. A separate article on the subject also potentially constitutes undue weight. *** Crotalus *** 21:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Be careful of "we don't have " arguments. Remember Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nudity in Judaism. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. If there is published research on the other religions and domestic violence then start an article by all means. Read the reference section of this article--tons of research has been published on this topic. There is no undue weight by having this here - if anything, it reduces the discussion of this issue in other articles. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• STRONG DELETE - This is nothing more than some kind of attack page, and a bigoted one at that. There is already a page on Criticism of Islam, which should have what useful information is within this article merged into it. Atari400 21:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Obvious keep: A lot of sources have talked about this issue. The fact that we dont have Christianity and domestic violence, doesnt mean we shouldnt have this article. I wouldnt AfD Eastern Christianity just because we dont have Eastern Islam. As for your last argument that "A separate article on the subject also potentially constitutes undue weight", well we have Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Christianity etc. Articles have to be split appropriately if a certain section gets large enough and this has happened in all of these cases including this one. --Matt57 21:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Looks well sourced and notable. By all means start the articles you mentioned if they have substantive sources and notability. Joshdboz (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete --- A pure POV piece, this article literally asks if the subject has stopped beating its wife yet. --- tqbf 22:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• keep and comment we do have an article Christianity and domestic violence now, Uncle G started it. Also, anyone who knows even several muslim women will know that domestic violence in those communities is an issue, and there are different issues around it in those cultures than in the secular culture that surrounds them, for instance, in the UK. (Due to arranged marriages, family influence, cultural values etc.) We might as well reflect reality and have an article discussing reality, than pretend something doesn't exist, when it does. It's not PC to say it's due to Islam though, so maybe rename to somehow say it's a cultural, rather than religious issue, or make that clear in the article's lead. Merkinsmum 22:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you're referring to a cultural thing not a Muslim thing. Domestic violence is indeed a problem in many immigrant communities sadly. I see no evidence it's restricted to Muslims ones though. For example a lot of what you're referring are common throughout the Indian subcontinent and is not restricted to Muslims. Do you have any evidence the problem is more widespread among Muslim Indian immigrants (including Pakistanis etc) in the UK then it is among non-Muslim (Hindu etc) Indian immigrants? I suspect there would not be much difference if any on the levels of domestic violence. Nil Einne (talk) 11:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You say 'It sounds to me like you're referring to a cultural thing not a Muslim thing. ' That's sort of what I said, isn't it? As to whether it's more comoon in Pakistani, Bangladeshi, predominantly Muslim rather than India communities, I would say so because the role of women is slightly better in Hindu cultures. Anyway what I'm saying is not so much that it's worse, but that there are specific factors such as arranged marriage, that make it a bit different to the issues in the UK as a whole. Maybe it should be renamed, though, to be more about a cultural thing. Merkinsmum 17:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - While I consider the title open for improvement, it is IMO appropriate to have an article on the topic which is an issue of significance, and generally notable. ITAQALLAH 23:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep - nominator makes the common mistake of assuming all religions are the same. Arrow740 (talk) 07:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - But article needs to be restricted. Stuff like what Merkinsmum mentions above probably doesn't belong in the article. The merits of other articles should definitely be considered. We now have Christianity and domestic violence. We also have Women in Hinduism and Sati (practice) Nil Einne (talk) 11:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As Pakistani analyst Farrukh Saleem points out in the Daily Times of Pakistan "Of the 192 member-states of the United Nations almost all honour killings take place in nine overwhelmingly Muslim countries. Denial is not an option...onour killings have taken place in France, Germany, the United Kingdom and Canada. Intriguingly, all these honour killings have taken place in Muslim communities of France, Germany, the United Kingdom and Canada. Denial is not an option." Nick mallory (talk) 13:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per WP:SIZE and WP:IAR, mainly because the article itself, while it could hypothetically be merged into Criticism of Islam, is highly useful on its own. --Sharkface217 20:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Strong DELETE This is nothing more than an attack on Islam. By its over generalization. And does not teach a person a single thing. Nor does it contain any facts, rather a mer point of view, thus is not worthy of an encyclopidia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.193.237.147 (talk) 03:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Society topics)
• AfD debates