Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious fanaticism

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. bainer (talk) 09:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religious fanaticism

I am probably going to lose this one, but... Religious fanaticism is a priori a NPOV violation. The whole article cannot escape being terminally biased. One man's religious fanatic is another's normal religious person. And before you can retort with, "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, and look, we do have an article on Terrorism", at least terrorism is a defined crime and statutes describe it and people who may condone it at the very least recognize that they're involved in it. Religious fanaticism is much more amorphous, and cannot be defined. Practices of sect X, which some may consider to be R.F., should go into the article on sect X. Everything else here is hopeless conjecture. Note also that this article has been untouched for half a year. Delete - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 04:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom, and merge any useful content into related articles. Well said. Tijuana Brass 04:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and I believe the term would be res ipsa loquitor instead of a priori? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • A priori means "necessarily resulting", meaning there's no way to craft this article without violating NPOV. Res ipsa loquitur means "the thing speaks for itself" and is a legal principle by which a tort is proven just by virtue of the fact that the harm could not have been incurred absent a tort, even though no direct evidence is available. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 14:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete stinks of POV. Even if it is somehow cleaned up it'll continue to attract more POV junk. Seems like it was left untouched for a long time too. Sheehan (Talk) 05:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• delete Merecat 06:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Good reason, too. I wish there was a way to systematically deal with articles like this. --Impaciente 06:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 07:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain I don't really like this article, but I think it is possible to make a NPOV article on this. Abortion is a POV magnet too but I don't see us deleting it. Kotepho 08:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Very strong keep. I can't imagine anyone wanting to delete this. Why on earth? It's a very important topic in current climates and just because an article may attract POV is no reason to delete it. It is quite possible to discuss the evolution and strength of religious fanaticism over the ages and the controversy surrounding it in a NPOV manner. It's possible to discuss who considers what to be religious fanatcism and who doesn't and how it affects global politics. This is so obviously encyclopaedia material. If you think it's POV, well clean it up or tag it but don't delete it. Abortion and Terrorism provide two perfect parrallas, I don't see any difference. This is one of the most absurd AfDs I've seen. Loom91 09:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Loom, this AfD is not absurd, and I resent the notion. Islamic R.F. should be covered in article on muslim religious philosophy, but not as "R.F.", rather as "this is what they do, this is why they do it, and here's who condemns it." You see, R.F. is inherently an epithet. For example, the article refers to the adherence to Shari'a as R.F. That just serves to denigrate the billion muslims who adhere to it. And I am arguing that there is no way to clean up an article like that, it's inherently uncleanupable. Please re-read the article and the nom carefully -- and consider being softer around the edges. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 14:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You're right in saying that the abortion, terrorism (and any other hot issue) articles attract POV edits, but that's not what the nom is for. The title itself is inherently POV. If we were to use those examples in comparison, the articles would instead have titles like "Abortion as Murder" or "Terrorist Arabs." I agree that there's useful content that could presumably be written here, but it would need to be added in a way that doesn't have tinge of a POV accusation of "fanaticism." Tijuana Brass 16:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• I don't agree that the title or subject are inherently POV--unless you are going to deny that it exists. This article could be easily written NPOV if well cited and it discussed psychological and sociological studies. Kotepho 17:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Hopelessly POV, and doesn't seem particularly useful when this could be covered on each religion's page, or possibly in fundamentalism. Perhaps this should redirect to that... Grandmasterka 09:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Per Loom91, this could be a legitimate topic, but this article is going nowhere. Metamagician3000 09:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge and redirect at fanaticism. NPOV is a cleanup issue, not a deletion issue. Certainly accusations of "religious fanaticism" make this a concept about which a worthwhile article can be written, and the text now at the page is not entirely unhelpful. Smerdis of Tlön 13:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Terence Ong 14:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. IrishGuy 14:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - merge useful material with fanaticism, fundamentalism, or the articles dealing with various faith traditions. Fishhead64 21:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but heavily rewrite. It can be a useful article, but the language in it is too POV at the moment. If anyone knowledgable about the subject and who has a calm enough demeanor to take it on were to rewrite it from the ground up, it could come out a valuable piece. Pat Payne 03:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. We should no delete an article because it's bad NOW, but only when it could be nothing but bad EVER. The article doesn't have to label any particular group as fanatics, it can discuss the CONCEPT of religious fanaticism and alleged examples with cited sources as to allegations and refutations. It is not necessary to say 'following Shariyat is religious fanaticism", we can say "this what religious fanaticism is, Reputable Source A calls following Shariyat religious fanaticism, but Reputable Source B refutes this claim". NPOV and bad material is not ground for deletion, bad topic is, and I don't think this opic is predestined to be bad. Certainly encyclopaedic content. Loom91 07:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point, but it'd be difficult in practice — it's hard to do an article on religious fanaticism without mentioning at least a few groups (although there may be an appeal to a general agreement for certain groups, like Charles Manson's). I think that the argument in favor of deletion is concerned with the article's title labeling groups in a POV manner rather than the kind of content you're suggesting. Tijuana Brass 16:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems to point the finger at all religions, balancing it out. Holds great promise for expansion. Religious fanaticism is a real phenomenon, and I don't see why--if it is such a strong influence in world affairs--not to have an article about it.--Primetime
• Comment. I've extensively rewrote the article to prsent an encyclopaedic and NPOV approach to the matter, also trying to explain to some extent why it should be considered an encyclopaedic topic. Please review the article in its current form and reconsider your vote. Loom91 07:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You just deleted all of the examples. I thought they broadened the definition and gave made the article more complete.--Primetime 07:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Whoah. First, Catholics have not been the only Christian fundamentalists. Second, there is not a direct war going on between the West and the Middle East. I'm sorry, but I'm just going to have to revert the change.--Primetime 07:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I would also add that the Crusades weren't one sided. It isn't as though that was a Christian fundamentalist issue with no fundamentalism at all on the Muslim side.IrishGuy 08:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It was a step in the right direction, but the very last sentence is exactly why POV is a problem — "Members of the religious mainstream usually disapprove of fanaticism, but some also feel it to be necessary to maintain cultural identity and spread the word of God." Your aim was clearly not to take any side on the issue, but it's exceedingly difficult to nail down objectivity on this one, as this sentence indicates. A noble effort, though. Thanks for taking the initiative to do it. Tijuana Brass 16:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep article needs editing and cleanup, not deletion. It is (to me) clearly an encyclopedic topic. See the article on terrorism for a good example of how to approach this kind of stuff. Deleting notable articles without given them a chance to improve harms wikipedia, instead of helping it. Also I object that any encyclopedic article could be by necessity not NPOV. And if it is so, is that still grounds to delete if, if it is encyclopedic? Many topics would be missing if wikipedia avoided controversy. Perle 19:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.