Talk:Religious fanaticism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Religion Portal This article is supported by WikiProject Religion. This project provides a central approach to Religion-related subjects on wikipedia. 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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 April, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

First, I told Loom91 on the AFD page that Catholics weren't the only religious fanatics and that there was no direct war between the Middle East and the West. Second, Loom91 reverted everyone else's changes, even keeping his spelling errors. Third, Loom91 took out many of the examples, even though they're obviously relevant to the subject, show the history of the subject, and broaden the definition of the concept. Further much of what he wrote is just a statement of what is obvious. Wikipedia is here to teach people things they don't already know. I suppose that I can keep the last paragraph, though, as I haven't heard that one before.--Primetime 18:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop the revert war

Please evryone, WP:NPOV and good judgment demands that an article be written from a neutral point of view, especially in controversial cases like this one. We can not accuse specific religious groups of being fanatics or imply any such accusation. Also, WIkipedia states what is obvious very often. A person may not have ever heard the phrase Religious fanaticism (it's not a very common phrase unless you keep up with world news, which many people do not), in which case there is no such thing as obvious for him. Wikipedia must not exclude facts on the basis they are obvious, obvious is subjective. Please stop this revert war and start making constructive edits, you continue to revert this article to its POV state then you are risking being nominated for deletion again. Loom91 05:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Primetime's version is more correct and overall more well written. I disagree with some of what Loom91 is trying to say, especially "In recent times there has been a cultural and sometimes direct war between western Christianity-dominated countries and Middle-East Islam dominated countries." I understand what you're trying to say here, but that doesn't seem like the way to say it. Some other points you make such as the religious mainstream opposing fanaticism sound great but sound like Original Research. Where are your sources?

I think that the specific examples that Primetime gives, however, could possibly be taken offensively and as such I think the article should not describe the groups as fanatics, but rather say that a specific group may consider them fanatic.. I'm getting this precedent from the Islamism article. ("Some Muslims find it troublesome that a word derived from "Islam" is applied to organizations they consider radical and extreme.")

But I'm not vain enough to think that my opinion is the only one that matters. Until a reasonable consensus is established, no more reverts should be made. Keppa 23:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

All right, I've attempted to rewrite the offending section and provide some references, though interwiki. Though this version is obviously open to dispute, please do not reinstate the previous inflammatory version accusing specific groups of being fanatics. We absolutely can not do that. Don't revert to that version, whatever you do. I also notice that while Primetime continues to revert edits, he has not seen fit to to take part in this discussion on the talk page. As for the last sentence on religious mainstreams not approving of fundamentalist tendencies, though that statement is currently unsourced I think all will agree it to be mostly truthful. After we have agreed that it is right, we can jointly try to seek out references. Loom91 07:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I don't think that the content about the conflict between the Middle East and the United States is applicable here, at least in its current form; for example, what clear connection (and I mean connection established within the article) does the Iraq war have with religious fanaticism? Claiming that the September 11 attacks were carried out by religious extremists would give it more relevance here. I'm abstaining from touching the article as I have little knowledge about this subject. Keppa 05:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. I also think much of the version proposed by Loom does not teach anyone anything, so it's almost useless without actual examples. However, in order to stop the edit warring, I will insert some non-controversial portions of that edition. I will also add qualifications to the examples, letting the reader know that the beliefs are not universal. Now the article is NPOV, I believe.--Primetime 05:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Haredi Jews stoning people on Shabbat

There have been some edits back and forth involving this sentence, and I went ahead and took it out altogether. My reasoning is, yes, it's true, it's possible to get hit with stones if driving in certain parts of Jerusalem during Shabbat, but it's not the work Relgious fanatics, rather the work of teenage orthodox hooligans. Nobody seriously considers that an emanation of religious extremism such as a 9/11 style suicide attack. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religious fanaticism and utilitarianism

I just conducted a major rewrite on this section. It was very poorly written and very loose with facts. It is now reasonably consistent with most contemporary ideas about utilitarianism, at any rate.

"Alternatively, religious belief could help an individual to find their place in society or give to the whole society a philosophical ethos, as religious belief can sometimes help persons find meaning in their lives." - this sentence still worries me a little, as finding meaning does not necessarily lead to an increase in utility. However, I qualified it with the sentence which follows it, so I think it should hold.

On another note, the original text tried to argue that according to utilitarianism, the fanaticism of a religious believer is continuous with how beneficial or detrimental their actions are to utility. I haven't ever heard this argued, and the source wasn't cited. Judging by the level of care put into the previous write-up, it is quite possible that the author pulled this out of their ass. However, I haven't any evidence to the contrary, so I left it in. Good luck with your revert war! Stringman5 06:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)