Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias in religion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] The name

I think the name of this project does not fit the contents. Criticism of religion and systematic bias against some religious movements is not or hardly related to freedom of religion. Why not re-name it into Wikiproject:countering systematic bias in religion Andries 17:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I was in the process of saying almost the exact same thing, and in fact hit an edit conflict with the above comment! But my idea is a bit more broad. I suggest that this project be changed to a simpler "Wikiproject: Religion" (which for some reason is not taken yet!), with the additional goals (1) improving Wikipedia's information on religion, (2) ensuring that significent religious views and aspects of subjects in articles are touched on when appropriate, and (3) when touching on topics that need information from religions in general, ensuring balance with relatively underrepresented major world religions (such as Hinduism and Sikhism).
I do think that these are important issues to address; but the name chosen seems unnecessarily confrontational. The issue, after all, isn't about whether or not people have freedom of religion on Wikipedia, but about how we should best approach religious topics to create a good encyclopedia. Aquillion 17:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
This project is more focused than just being about religion in general. But I am open to other suggestions. --goethean ॐ 18:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
What is it focused on beyond religion in general? -Willmcw 20:38, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Freedom of religion is POV, if it stresses the rights of churches and neglects the rights of individuals: Example: Does the Catholic Church have the right to teach Mary's bodily assumption to heaven? Does the Catholic Church have the right to demand that every member personally believes this is true? Does the Catholic Church have the right to practice sanctions on members who don't believe it? Does the Catholic Church have the right to practice sanctions on Catholics who teach something different? "Classical" controversies regarding these questions are the cases of theologians Hans Küng and Uta Ranke-Heinemann vs the former Cardinal Ratzinger - to take a real-world non-cult example.

In such a conflict of freedom of religion (freedom of the group) and freedom of belief (freedom of the individual) there are advocates on both sides who value one of those two rights higher than the other. And there are additional parties which stress freedom of speech which is also a basic human right (e.g. non-Catholics commenting critically on the Catholic view in the Küng or Ranke-Heinemann case - which now amounts to directly critizing the head of the Catholic church).

The same values play a decisive role in most conflicts "cult defenders - cult opposition" and also in the political conflict between US and European countries regarding freedom of religion (not my personal research, I can give you references, if requested).

While most Wikipedians will (and should) have their personal values regarding freedom of speech, freedom of belief and freedom of religion, none of these values should be given preference in any Wikipedia article. And that's why I strongly feel that this project should be renamed. --Irmgard 07:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

We are not asking that articles be given preference. WP:NPOV is non-negotiable. You are welcome to start a different wikiproject, if you wish. This wikiproject is designed to ensure that religion-related articles are edited within NPOV and without an anti-religious bias. --ZappaZ 01:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Take care, Zappaz, I, for one, sure have no anti-religious bias: I'm a convinced Evangelical Christian (theologically Arminian type, culturally European type) - and I am aware that that's by far not the only point from which to view religious matters. I am also in favor of freedom of religion - but I take my definition not from the American constitution but from article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." This article, like the other 29, stresses the rights and freedoms of the individual person. And I strongly oppose any limitation of these rights and freedoms of the individual person which are "subject to limitations ... solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedom of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order, and the general welfare in a democratic society. " (Article 29). --Irmgard 13:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Irmgard, statement "Freedom of religion is POV", is exactly why this wikiprojectwas created. Freedom of belief/religion/conscience is one of the basic rights of a person. Wikipedia, as a global encyclopedia, needs to ensure that its articles are devoided on an anti-religious bias, and that these articles conform to the NOPV policy. --ZappaZ 01:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
ZappaZ, I think it is important for us to ensure that there is an overall balance in the depiction of religion on articles. Many Wikipedians are not religious; this can lead to a neglect for religious aspects of many topics. Likewise, since religion is so important to many people, it can lead them to overstep the bounds of encyclopedic writing when defending their views. Worst of all, most of the religious people on Wikipedia seem to be Western Judeo-Christian faith; when religion is touched upon, this tends to slant it towards those faiths and away from many other major world faiths. Those are, I think, the most important issues biasing religious topics on Wikipedia at the moment; clearly, the only way to address them neutrally is to assemble a group of people from all parts of the religious spectrum. Therefore, I hope that Irmgard and Willmcw (as the only other people who have expressed interest in this project) will join with that goal in mind. Aquillion 06:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
"[The] statement 'Freedom of religion is POV', is exactly why this wikiprojectwas created." Well, yes, I'm sure that that's true. It doesn't make a terribly convincing indictment of the statement, however, or a very clear case for the WikiProject. When "freedom of religion" is used as a justification for practices that rob others of their freedoms, it is POV; that is a point that has been saliently made and which you have failed to answer. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I request an immediate name change

I request an immediate name change. For example to Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systematic bias in religion. I consider the current name incorrect and offensive. Reasons are

  1. (too much) criticism in Wikipedia of certain religious movements has nothing to do with freedom of religion.
  2. the to-do list contains quite a large number of articles that I edited, but I never impeded anyone's religion

You can also rename it into Wikipedia:WikiProject Freedom from criticisms of religion because that title is more in correspondence with the current to-do list.

Andries 12:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What say you? Is it possible? and if so how?

Given that my RfA nomination is going south and sinking fast, I would like to as editors a few questions:

  1. DO you think it is possible to develop NPOV articles related to religion in WP in with editors that have extremely opposed views, without animosity, personal attacks and ill-will?
  2. Of the articles that many of you have edited, do you think that these articles are better of or worse of after interactions between editors with opposed/polarized POVs?
  3. Take an article that we have edited together as ask yourself: What would have been the shape of that article if any of us had complete control of that article and no opposed POV to counteract our bias?
  4. What would be the three things that you would propose to make WP a more pleasant environment to discuss and edit articles in which you have strong POVs and you know that others have opposing POVs?

Your comments below, would be appreciated. --ZappaZ 18:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not in this project, but I'm glad there is such a project. Plus you haven't gotten any responses so I'll be nice and respond.

1: Anything is possible. The question is a tad difficult to answer though in that Wikipedia articles can change all the time or new people can enter who'd be offended. There are several small religions I started articles on before I signed up, but they have gathered no controversy so far. However I don't think that's because I'm so great at this. I think it's because no one in those religions, or who knows their members, has signed up. If a former member of Chen Tao, or a group slightly more likely, shows up they might be rather annoyed. Likewise there are larger religious groups in West Africa or Brazil that I did articles on, but that have not caused controversy. Again I'd guess that's because relatively few English speaking Brazilians or West Africans are at the English Wiki. (Especially as in one case I was using a translation of an article deemed NPOV at a non-English Wiki) If Brazilians or Nigerians gain far better representation here I'd assume some of my earlier efforts at writing about their NRMs will be deemed POV in some respect.

Which leads to another issue. The religions articles that will cause the most dispute I think will generally not be the most slanted articles. Instead I think they'll be, and are, the articles of religions that garnered the most media attention in the English speaking world. Hence "The Children of God", a group I'd barely heard of before, gets a good deal of attention at Wiki as some of their members were famous actors or musicians. I think that's likely unavoidable, but it is occasionally irritating. While a large African religion could likely be deemed "a dangerous cult", even if it's fairly mainstream, without getting much attention for awhile.

2: Some are better, some are worse. Some get better and then get worse. I think I've seen improvement more often then I've seen articles get worse though.

3: I have religious articles that have basically, so far, been "mine." Several in fact. The list of convicted or indicted religious leaders grew out of my former efforts at the, rightfully deleted(and not created by me) "list of controversial religious leaders." So far I think I'm the only one to do anything on the "convicted/indicted" deal. The List of Church of Christ Scientists arose out of something I read at the List of Christian scientists. They are just lists, but I also was the lone figure on Chen Tao as mentioned. I have tried to be fair or neutral when possible. Still I think "going it alone" has hazzarded a certain temptation to define things based on potentially arbitrary or whimsical ideas. In general some oversight is good in writing non-fiction and I'm used to that even in an academic setting.

I have no idea on 4.--T. Anthony 11:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Ironically both List of Church of Christ Scientists and List of Christian scientists were put on AfD. Although the first one may survive the second is dead. It just looks blue because I made it into a redirect for List of avowed Christians in science(now called List of Christian thinkers in science) which is a similar, but far more strictly structured list, which survived an AfD vote as no concensus. List of convicted or indicted religious leaders seems to be as safe, and ignored, as ever.--T. Anthony 06:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Just signed up

I seem to be spending more and more time on Wikipedia defending NPOV especially against the so called Skeptical position. It seems that many think NPOV is wrong or simply do not understand what the concept really means. So I support your project wholeheartedly. - Solar 18:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] To answer some of the questions by Zappaz

I think that we should stop writing articles based on generalizations, e.g. that groups that are called cults are bad, and that apostates are unreliable. Also please stop writing that in the talk pages because it makes editors like myself very angry. Andries 16:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criteria for inclusion on "Related articles" list

When I saw the "Related articles" list, I expected to find NPOV tags on the articles when I viewed them. However, only a few of them actually did. I didn't look at history pages, so maybe the others were resolved and this list is out of date...or maybe this is a "potentially" POV list. In any case, the reasons for membership on the list are unclear. I added some subheadings and a "See also" link to get the ball rolling. I'm particularly interested in getting articles out from under the "Other, no tags" sublist.

In addition, some of these articles might be good candidates for adding to the {{Spirituality tasks}} template. (A few already are on the template.) — RichardRDFtalk 04:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fiery Furnace

I'd like to try to clean up and improve the pages about the story of the fiery furnace. The story of the fiery furnance has a lot of importance in the Jewish and Christian traditions, and had has a lot of cultural impact; Wikipedia ought to have better information about it. I've started by poking at the pages and suggesting some merges; I'd appreciate any help from project members on whatever relating to this subject, but specifically (since this is your project) to avoid sectarian bias in the articles. Please leave any comments on the talk page of fiery furnace. Thanks! -- Tetraminoe 13:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement drive

Meditation is currently nominated on WP:IDRIVE. If you want to see it improved and could help us bring it up to featured standard, please vote for it here! --Fenice 08:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comparative Religions Template

Please visit this template I'm working on to go at the bottom of all of the major religious pages as a way to facilitate comparative religion research. Leave your comments on its talk page. Thanks! --Mareino 01:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More on Systematic Bias

I've started or participated in all kinds of religion pages by now. Some are pretty good, others so-so, and some I despair of ever being ready for prime time. Let me run down some of my experiences and see what you think.

  • Burkhanism, an Altaian NRM. I'm apparently the only substantive editor, though I have asked a couple of specialists to look it over. On the other hand, it is admittedly very obscure. A big problem is that most of the research is in Russian, which I don't speak.
  • Sky Kingdom, a Malaysian NRM. Messy but basically informative. The biggest problem has been vandalism--i.e. Malay Muslims (I surmise) getting pissed off at the founder's claim (maybe) to be God, and venting their frustration through the article itself.
  • Subud, a Javanese NRM. The big problem as I see it, is that many Subudians object to what outsiders would consider informative descriptions. For instance, most Subudians believe in a septegenary cosmos (it's in their symbol, for Bob's sake) but somebody erased an explanation of it on the grounds that Subudians don't have to believe anything, have no beliefs, just take everything directly from God, etc.. This is one example of an ongoing pattern which makes me reluctant to put too much time into this.
  • Baha'i Faith, Babism, and about 100 related articles. Same problem, more or less, except the Baha'is move more in lockstep, regularly patroling these sites and changing anything they disagree with. Yes, I realize that's kind of the idea of Wikipedia, but Baha'is have some contentious beliefs about a number of things which outsider's can't very well compensate for, because the subjects are so obscure. One informative controvery has been over what sort of sources are legitimate. Much information about Baha'i dissidents and exes is available only on personal websites, stuff like that, which our Baha'i wikipedians claim are always illegitimate sources (except, apparently, when reprinted as books). Whenever the views of such "heretics" are introduced onto Baha'i sites, the Baha'is make them disappear. What to do?
  • Jesus. For somebody so famous, his Wikipedia entry sure is a mess. The problem as I see it is that everybody in the world has an opinion about the J-Man, and Wikipedia doesn't care that most of these are painfully uninformed. (Christianity is a lot better, by the way.)
  • Dorje Shugden, a Tibetan Buddhist entity. Some say he's an angel, others a devil. Oddly enough, that's not the main problem with the page, as the two camps seem to have come to an understanding. The problem is weird, undefended historical takes, like the guy who insists that Shugden comes from Shakya rather than Gelug tradition, and has apparently devoted his life to making sure that this interpretation prevails on the site.

Alas, if only everyone could be as virtuous as I, then they too might radiate wisdom and serenity even as I do! Seriously, are these inherent problems with the Wiki format? If so, I notice the Islamic and Jewish entries seem to have kept a generally high quality, and the Buddhists aren't so shabby either... Dawud 13:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Methinks they are inherent to the extent that there will always be people with a religious axe to grind. Its up to us in this project to counter such efforts to the extent of our ability and willingness to do so. Sympathies. --Smithfarm 16:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem: Is this problem against bias, or just against NEGATIVE bias?

To quote this Project's third goal: "To alert members to articles that are biased or that exhibit prejudice against religion or spirituality". Would there be any problem with changing this to "To alert members to articles that are biased or that exhibit prejudice for or against religion or spirituality"? Small differences like this are what will determine whether I join this WikiProject and try to help it in its goals, or whether I oppose it as a force for bias in itself. Positive and negative prejudices are equally harmful to Wikipedia's interests. -Silence 06:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Since no one has responded, I decided to be bold and change it. Looking at your contribution history, I definitely think you should join us! --J. J. 15:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't see Silence's comment. My interactions with him/her have been fruitless anyways. I believe that there is widespread and unchecked systemic bias against religious belief on Wikipedia. This project was intended to correct that. Thus I believe that the change is unnecessary. — goethean ॐ 16:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Interesting. RockOfVictory/J.J., thank you for trying, but it sounds like my worries are not entirely misplaced despite your alteration, if the project's founder feels that it is more important to alleviate anti-religious bias than pro-religious bias. If you want my assistance in any religion-related article, feel free to ask anytime, as one of my greatest interests is religion-related topics, but I don't think I can formally join this project at this time, considering its current set of weighted priorities. Regardless, good luck to you all in helping improve Wikipedia's NPOV treatment of religious topics. -Silence 17:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The voice of the founding member is only one voice among many. I've been largely inactive here anyways. Although I must say that I find the idea of systemic pro-religious bias in Wikipedia laughable. — goethean ॐ 17:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
If you insist on laughing at the very idea instead of taking it seriously, it strongly suggests that Wikipedia does have a systemic pro-religious bias, of which you are a part. At the very least, it suggests that if there is a systemic pro-religious bias on Wikipedia, you would be the last one to know of its existence. -- Antaeus Feldspar
I don't see how that follows. Given my experience here, the idea of pro-religious systemic bias is indeed laughable, since the majority of Wikipedians with whom I have come into contact seem to be dismissive or positively antagonistic towards religious and spiritual perspectives. There are probably a few articles that contain pro-religious bias, but my experience is that Wikipedia's systemic bias is clearly against religion and spirituality. — goethean ॐ 15:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
And your experience is, of course, all that matters. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
In Category:Wikipedians by religion atheism is usually more common than Catholicism, Islam, and Hinduism combined. That might not say much to you, but atheism at best represents 10% of the world whereas those three faiths represent almost half the world by some estimates. The bias here is usually non-religious although I have seen intense advocates for small(under 50,000 members) or new religions at Wikipedia. And there are persistently biased people for larger faiths as well. Still they're usually outnumbered by atheists and antitheists. Considering this place was founded by an Objectivist I think an anti-religious bias would be plausible. (Ayn Rand having no patience for religions)--T. Anthony 22:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
My point is that by far the easiest and fairest thing to do would be to address all forms of bias. Not just some. Bias against new religions, bias against old religions, bias against mainstream religions, bias against obscure religions, bias against no religion. When someone is asked if he thinks all religious bias should be opposed and his response amounts to 'only some religious biases are worthy of being addressed', I don't know what it says to you but I sure know what it says to me. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
There's hardly a requisite for such hostility; that goethean expressed his view on the issue does not of necessity imply any imposition of supremacy and perspectival ultimacy on his part as you would seem to have it. Let's make the attempt to be sensible on such sensitive issues—and not so keen to make (mis-)calculations as regards others' intentions, which is itself nonsensical in toto. The matter must be as clear as possible if any suitable action or deliberation is to be undertaken: grossly hypothecating in general terms is not the manner in which this is to be accomplished, let alone approached. — ignis scripta 03:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity

Would anyone care to look over Christianity, Criticism of Christianity, Evangelism, Jesus and Jesus-Myth? A website critical of Wikipedia has been charging that these articles are biased. Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated. Thanking you in advance, Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 04:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latest in biblical terminology

In the Judaism WikiProject's Jewish vs. Christian section, the following issue is mentioned: Usage of words such as "Old Testament" and "New Testament" in articles. I know that this is a very controversial topic, but definitely one that we can come up with a plan for. Before making any major changes across WP, though, who is versed in the latest practices in terminology? The SBL Handbook (1999, ISBN 156563487X, 900 KB PDF) mentions (in section 4.3):

  • The Handbook of Nonsexist Writing (2nd ed. 1988, ISBN 0060962380) and
  • Guidelines for Bias-Free Writing (1995, ISBN 0253209412). What sources do you use? Are there more up-to-date sources? --J. J. 15:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I just got an e-mail back from the Editorial Director of SBL. While he didn't have an updated list of antibias works (e.g. "New Testament" or "CSV"), he did mention these additional resources:
  • Grammar and Gender (1986, ISBN 0300035268) and
  • Talking About People (Maggio 1997, ISBN 1573560693). An Amazon review for this adds: Herbst [Color of Words] concentrates on racial and ethnic bias in language, while Maggio thoroughly covers sex and gender bias. Herbst is more descriptive, Maggio prescriptive, and Herbst provides more social and historical detail for the entries...
  • The Color of Words (Herbst 1997, ISBN 1877864420).
--J. J. 15:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian views coloring writing about Judaism

See this diff. It's so deeply-ingrained in Western/Christian minds that Torah means "Law", that that language has sat in that article (and, I have no doubt, elsewhere) w/o a word raised in challenge... Tomertalk 20:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well... I do believe that "Torah" can also mean "law," (or "code") as in "Torat Kohanim," "Torat Hayoledet," "Torat Hametzora," etc. Having grown up in an Orthodox/Modern Orthodox community, calling the Mishna the "Oral Law" seems quite natural to me... I believe that even Artscroll, that bastion of Orthodox Jewish thought, translates it that way. I'm sure that there are issues on which Christianity has certain misconceptions about Judaism, but is this really one of them? --Eliyak 03:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually I didn't have any specific view of what the word "Torah" means. If I'd guessed I would have said "teaching" or "book", but neither theory was strong enough to be deeply engrained in me. Then again I grew up in small-town Midwest where the nearest synagogue is over an hour's drive away.--T. Anthony 05:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Torah as "law" is a common Christian view--that it is readily translated by Jews as such is a result of Christian influence, not a reflection of Jewish philosophy. The "bias" comes in with Christianity's teaching that Judaism's God [with slight irreverent paraphrasing] is a heavy-handed big-fisted meanie while Christianity's God is a lovey-dovey cuddly teddy bear, a philosophy which finds basis in Christian mistranslation of the very foundational book of Judaism, the Torah. Also, I think you'll find that, while many people appreciate Artscroll's copious publishing efforts, that they are hardly regarded as a bastion of Orthodoxy, rather as a bastion of one small but very prolific school of very Ashkenazi Orthodoxy, and despite the fact that you can buy Artscroll pretty much anywhere, and the fact that practically every observant Jewish household has at least one volume published by them, that they are widely criticized, including by people like me who have at least 50 volumes emblazoned with "Artscroll". Tomertalk 23:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RCC vs. CC

There is an ongoing discussion regarding the naming of the Catholic Church (in communion with Rome) over at Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Name. I was wondering if editors of this project wouldn't mind weighing in to see if pushing the R-word is biased on the part of prots, or if claiming the word "catholic" is biased on the part of Catholics. Maybe this issue isn't a matter of religious bias, but having more editors join the discussion is always helpful. Thanks for your consideration.--Andrew c 14:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

For a treatment of the issue based on WP naming conventions and policies you may want to follow this link: CC vs. RCC Vaquero100 01:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispensationalism

is an appalling article, and I don't even know where to begin w/ fixing it... what made me come here specifically was the section about messianic Judaism, which begins with a disclaimer completely with vanity links and the like, and thereafter sinks into a massively POV discussion of stuff about which I know too little to comment authoritatively... Tomertalk 23:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dhimmi

I'd be very grateful if one or more people from this project could cast an eye on the above article. Big POV dispute going round in circles. I'm too involved now to see the wood for the trees. In particular, discussion is stalled on the standing of the writer known as "Bat Ye'or" as a major source for the article. Itsmejudith 21:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A child project for Hinduism

Per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AMbroodEY/Fundy Watch, I am creating a child project to counter systemic bias in articles related to Hinduism. --Babub→Talk 11:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

i would like to be a part of this project Babub. nids 05:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

As would I.Netaji 20:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Me tooBakaman Bakatalk 21:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ACIM

It seems this is a contentious article, but I think A Course in Miracles could use the attention of this wiki project. Not a dog 14:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jews for Jesus and Template:Christianity

There has been a BIG debate raging over whether or not to use the Christianity template in the Jews for Jesus article.

Everyone agrees that JfJ is theologically Christian. The debate is over whether or not the template is appropriate for such a small organization. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 04:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

On the other side of the debate are users who want the Christianity template up in any case, just to make it really clear that "Jews" for Jesus (an intentionally misleading name) is a Christian organization. --Eliyak T·C 17:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Book banning on Wikipedia?

Two users (User:Hornplease and User:Lkadvani) are advocating that the works of Koenraad Elst should be banned on wikipedia:

  • However, I have an objection to this [1] edit. Note that [2] is still unresolved. I thought that you had agreed to hold off on discussion of Dr. Elst for a while. To go ahead and make additional citations of his material seems to be a violation of an agreement in good faith. Please do consider this and find an alternative citation. Thanks. Hornplease 05:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC) We can resume it, but in the meantime I will ask you to return to the status quo ante and not cite him any further, and to remove any citations that you have added since the discussion went on hold - which was done at your request.Hornplease 07:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC) [3]
  • "I am trying to contact him and have contacted some of his associates to that effect. Please suspend discussion on this topic and monitor the users who are trying to defame him until I can get him to respond, either directly or through me."23:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC) No problem. Discussion can be suspended, and I will monitor the use of his name. Please, however, it would be best if when you approached Dr. Elst or his associates, you did not say that he was being 'defamed', but stated the problem as blandly as possible. Wikipedia does not need legal problems.23:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[4] Hornplease compares Elst, who has repeatedly written against anti-semitism and nazism, with David Irving.[5]
  • He agreed to hold off on quoting Elst till Elst could respond to this "defamation". He went ageand and added this source anyway. User:Hornplease 09:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[6]
Survey

I am conducting a survey to understand if Koenraad Elst could be cited as a valid non biased source for the 2002 Gujarat violence,Babri Masjid and Ram Janmabhoomi articles.My personal opinion is that he represents Hindutva ideology and hence quotes from him will creep in bias in these articles.Since it is a Socio-religious issue.I will appreciate views from users of all religious - non religious followings.
Can we include Koenraad Elst's comments as a valid NPOV factual/news source?
Please highlight with your comments on why we should and why we should not? Concise and responding to these questions.I will only allow the first para of your responses hare.

  • Big..No..No ..

[edit] Censorship?

  • Hornplease also claims that Aditya Prakashan, Voice of India, Rupa Publishing, Transaction Publishers, Har-Anand Pub. South Asia Books, World Archaeological Congress, Peeters and the other publishing houses that have published works or papers by Elst are "non-academic presses". He even claims that "Routledge India is not really academic, unlike Routledge UK."[7] I find this extremely culturally insensitive, and somehow this strongly reminds of the cultural chauvinism of the British Empire, where people like Macaulay said: "I have never found one among them who could deny that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia." Does Hornplease really want to say that Aditya, VOI, Rupa, and the other publishing houses have not published any academic works? Or that Indian scholarly publications are just "sub-academic", as with the "not really academic" Routledge India? Many of Elst's works are about Indian politics and contemporary issues and conflicts of Hinduism and were published in India. His works are widely known and have been referred to by scholars like Islam expert Bat Ye'or, Indologist Edwin Bryant, Savitri Devi expert Christian Bouchet, to name just a few. He might not be exactly "academic mainstream", but many other scholars often quoted in wikipedia are not either, for example Bat Ye'or, Ibn Warraq, Robert Spencer, Andrew Bostom and Srđa Trifković, who don't have a Ph.D. in Islamic studies or are otherwise not mainstream, but are quoted often in wikipedia.
If these individuals are quoted, someone more knowledgeable than I should seek alternative quotes. As I have said in the context of Dr. Elst, if a sentence in an article is interpretative and rests solely on the analysis of Dr. Elst, and no alternative citations can be found, the argument that that sentence forms part of is in serious trouble. This probably applies to the other individuals listed above.
About the Indian publishing houses, I have not included the established Indian academic presses such as Oxford University Press India, Cambridge University Pres India, Orient Longman, Tata McGraw Hill, and Viking India. A cursory comparison of Routledge India's list to Routledge UK's list will be instructive. Hornplease 05:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
So anybody who cites Elst must also do the extra work and provide alternative citations? This might be reasonable in some cases, but to demand this everywhere is rather unfair. Plus, even if there are alternative citations, his citations might be in some cases the most informative or the most striking ones.--Bondego 12:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • If certain inconvenient scholars are to be banned, maybe they should be listed on Wikipedia:List of books banned on wikipedia? If Elst is banned today on wikipedia, who will be next? This is just to silence all criticism of for example the Indian Marxist (sometimes anti-Hindu) point of view, the censoring of all disagreeable views and to censor the Hindu point of view. Elst is in certain topics among the most important scholars on the Hindu and/or objective point of view, and the banning of his works is just trying to introduce or keep systematic bias in wikipedia.
  • I certainly agree some quotes are just not appropriate for an article, and that Elst was misquoted in some articles. But the entire tone of Hornplease's and Lkadvani's discussions shows more an inclination towards censorship and systematic bias, than an interest in neutrality, balance and reason.--Bondego 12:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Treating an author with caution as a source is not the same as "banning them from wikipedia". Elst's views are notable enough for him to have his own article. He has a doctorate but it seems he does not hold an academic post and he does not regularly publish peer reviewed articles. It is clear that he writes from a standpoint that is not middle of the road. He's fully entitled to do that but wikipedia's NPOV policy means that if he is cited his views should be balanced with those of other authors. Itsmejudith 22:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Itsmejudith, I agree that every author used in wikipedia should be treated with caution. However, reading through the comments made by Lkadvani and Hornplease, they show more an inclination towards "banning them from wikipedia", than about "treating works with caution". How do you know that he doesn't regularly publishes peer reviewed articles, and can you show me evidence that it is an established practice for scholars writing about contemporary Indian politics and religious conflicts and who publish in India to publish peer reviewed books and/or articles? In any case, his books are referred to or discussed by other scholars in various fields. There are many scholars that are not mainstream or who do not write from a standpoint in the middle of the road, but are nevertheless cited often in wikipedia. I agree that if he is cited his views should be balanced with those of other authors. --Bondego 23:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
This is the single most patronising remark I have read on Wikipedia. India has had a long list of scholars who have published peer-reviewed books and articles. They are, unfortunatly, unpopular with certain strands of political thought that in general believe that Western scholarship is irremediably slanted against Indian sensitivities. On contemporary Indian politics and religious conflicts I refer the writer, who has clearly not so much as bothered to check the first few results of a google scholar search, to Romila Thapar, Sunil Khilnani, Ashutosh Varshney, Atul Kohli, Ashis Nandy, Mushirul Hasan, Sumit Sarkar, Tanika Srkar, Bipin Chandra, Sumit Ganguly, Yogendra Yadav, Sumantra Bose, Dharma Kumar and Sudipta Kaviraj. All these individuals, most of whom are still active, have published multiple peer-reviewed articles and books, are tenured at major universities in India and abroad and have studied in India and through the Indian educational system. I add that this is a list that I have come up with off the top of my head. A little rooting around the faculties of major Indian, American, English and European universities will produce a few dozen more. Hornplease 05:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I know that there are many scholars in the political sciences who have published books in India, but how do you know that the ones in your list have produced peer-reviewed articles? How do you know if Elst's (or anybody's else) books and/or papers are peer-reviewed or not? In WP:Reliable sources, "Peer-reviewed" is mainly an issue for "Physical sciences, mathematics and medicine." Elst does not publish in the sciences. Elst's works are about contemporary Indian politics and religious conflicts. WP:RS also says in the non-science section: "However, while reliability is to some extent fungible, peer reviewed publications make errors, professional publications vary widely in quality and have their own POVs and other sources have to be evaluated based on the particular assertion." And WP:RS is by the way only a guideline (not official), and maybe also biased toward the western situation, not the situation in India. Is Peer-review in the political sciences and in India an established practice? How many peer-reviewed papers does a scholar in the political sciences in India need to meet your standard. (Elst has obtained his Ph.D. only recently.)

That is another absurd statement. I have provided a list of individuals. If you were even slighly committed to actually improving this encyclopaedia, you would have checked "that the ones on my list have produced peer-reviewed articles". Which they have, thousands of them. You say WP:RS does not specify a source has to be peer-reviewed to be reliable. I have never claimed it does. In political science or contemporary Indian politics that would rule out Hobbes or the Parliamentary Record, respectively. The social sciences and so on occasionally require original sources, so wp:rs cannot be restricted to peer-reviewed articles. If, however, the article is constructing an argument, then the choice of a scholar who has never been reviewed by his peer is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. What part of that do you not understand?
Peer review in the political sciences and in Indian academia is an established practice. I urge you to find out more about the structure of inquiry into these questions before making these unfounded and disruptive accusations. Elst has obtained his PhD 8 years ago, after working towards it since 1992. That is more than enough time for a scholar whose views are to be taken as representative to have published something peer-reviewed. Hornplease 21:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
But you still don't tell me how you can check if a scholar publishing in India has peer reviewed articls or not? This might be easy for scholars in the sciences publishing in the West. But for example, even in the sciences, the vast majority of science journals published in India cannot be searched in international databases or in secondary services.
Elst has published in academic publications edited by Dasgupta, Pollet, Bryant and others. Are you saying that Elst's paper is the only one in these books that is not peer-reviewed. Are only the papers of the other contributors to these books peer-reviewed? He presented papers in conferences with other scholars (read Ayodhya:Case against the Temple). Three of his books contain mostly parts of his Ph.D. thesis. In many of his books, Elst thanks many other scholars for their help. His books are also referred to and discussed by many other scholars. (I could try to make a list from research on his homepage and the internet, but merely a list of names won't mean much to most people.) In some specialized fields, for example "Hindu fascism", he is notable.
And where does your quote above come from? I can't find it in WP:RS. Have you read WP:RS? Apart from the sciences section, it barely talks about peer-review. WP:RS does not say things like they must have a Ph.D., be peer-reviewed and so on. And remember that WP:RS is a guideline, not policy.--Bondego 08:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
In the social sciences, the major peer-reviewed journals in India are included in citation indices . Journals such as Indian Economic and Social History Review and the Economic and Political Weekly are indexed online. The Dasgupta you mention is Swapan Dasgupta, a journalist, who hardly counts as a peer-reviewer. Pollet and Bryant are names I am unfamiliar with and we have already disagreed about that particular collection. He may have presented papers, but if the conference was non-notable, then it is unclear what is relevant. I have seen the minutes of one, which was at Case Western, and is very strongly POV in its selection of papers - Elst was practically the most qualified presenter! That his papers "are read and discussed" is irrelevant. As I have said, he represents a particular strand of thought so he might be read and discussed by mainstream academics attempting to decipher that strand of thought. In such a context, he can of course be quoted - like in the Ram Janmabhoomi article, where he can represent the arguments for the temple, though even in that article, BB Lal would be a vastly preferred source.
About WP:RS, your concerns are addressed by DBachmann below.Hornplease 05:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
What do mean we have disagreed about that collection? Bryant's is an academic work. I don't know where your source is that the book is published by Routledge India (it might be Routledge Curzon), but even if, the book is also partly about Indian history, so this could be the reason that it would be published by the Indian division. He was also in conferences with scholars from the other side of the debate (read Ayodhya:Case against the temple). --Bondego 09:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
What you said about strand of thought is also wrong. Have you read the Bryant book you were criticizing? In the introduction and in at least two of the papers in the book by other scholars, Elst's arguments are discussed. Even in the hostile review of Elst's work by Witzel in this book, it is Elst's arguments that are discussed (see the article on that on Elst's homepage). And I've seen a review of that book that only discussed the arguments of Elst on the anti-AMT side, all the other ones were not taken seriously or dismissed as not taken linguistics into account. And in Bryant's earlier book (2001, Oxford University Press), it is again Elst's arguments that are discussed. The same is true for many others, other scholars have discussed for example his arguments about Savitri Devi, or refered to his other books. And if a scholar is influential or not cannot be measured by a set of 5 or 6 fixed measurements, especially in the humanaties and politics. --Bondego 08:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

In any case, his books are referred to and discussed by other scholars in various fields, and some of his papers appeared in notable publications. (Bat Ye'or, Daniel Pipes, Edwin Bryant, Hans Hock, to name just a few) He is not an unknown scholar in his ivory tower. And read this article:[8] Elst publishes mostly in India. This article says that in India the field of Hinduism studies in India is not competitive: "But while 300+ scholars in the West specialize in academic Hinduism Studies, the field does not exist in India, because it was deemed to threaten secularism as defined by Indian intellectuals."--Bondego 11:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You have quoted Rajiv Malhotra, an activist in New Jersey who believes that all academic work is hopelessly POV about Hinduism, as academia everywhere is overrun with Marxists and cultural imperialists. I do not wish to discuss his motivation, but perhaps if you read other things by him you will discover that he is not a useful addition to any debate, and does not strengthen your claim at all. Hornplease 21:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I have a strong objection to taking out the works of Koenraad Elst simply because he sympathizes with Hindus. Many authors around the world sympthaize with different groups, we don't attack them because of that. He has been extremely useful on one page that I've been working on (Out of India theory) and has been accepted by all editors on that article to be a suitable source who talks of the theory with some sanity and without the propaganda. One cannot place restrictions on citing an author simply because he sympathizes with Hindutva. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
It might be incorrect to say that he sympathizes with Hindutva. Read for example this article. [9] --Bondego 23:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
From which link comes the revealing quote "Rest assured that in Hindutva circles, many people count as far more important than I." Hornplease 05:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
From which link comes also this: Anyone who has read my book BJP vis-à-vis Hindu Resurgence (1997) will be surprised to see me described as an “advocate of the Sangh Parivar”. I suppose that in a world of partisan scholarship, where the party-line is scrupulously followed by activists and camp-followers alike, any attempt to remain objective must come across as counter-partisan, meaning partisan activism for the opposite side. Hindutva is a fairly crude ideology, borrowing heavily from European nationalisms with their emphasis on homogeneity. Under the conditions of British colonialism, it was inevitable that some such form of Hindu nationalism would arise.--Bondego 11:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
About balance, may I quote what I have written elsewhere:
This is not censorship or systemic bias. This is ensuring that the discussion of difficult subjects is undertaken with the benefit of citation from scholars who have endured the oversight of their peers and have demonstrated their accomplishments sufficiently rigorously. I have also stated that if Dr. Elst is quoted specifically as someone familiar with the internal dynamics of the Hindu revivalist movement and in articles where that knowledge is relevant, then I have no objection.
I take strong objection to Bondego's comments and in particular his use of the word 'banning' in the title. I do not wish to speak of the other editor involved, but I fail to see a single instance when any but a deliberate misreading of my edits can suggest a desire to 'ban' a source, and not a desire to improve the encyclopaedia by opening it to the best possible sources.

Hornplease 05:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree more or less with your statement: I have also stated that if Dr. Elst is quoted specifically as someone familiar with the internal dynamics of the Hindu revivalist movement and in articles where that knowledge is relevant, then I have no objection. and, "I have also stated that if Dr. Elst is quoted specifically as someone familiar with the internal dynamics of the Hindu revivalist movement and in articles where that knowledge is relevant, then I have no objection."
However, you (and User:Lkadvani) have (see the beginning of the section [10]) written to other users that they should not cite Elst at all. (for example:"I will ask you to return to the status quo ante and not cite him any further, and to remove any citations that you have added"). This is very different from treating his works with caution.
You also say that he has not published trough academic presses and that Routledge India is less academic than Routledge UK.
I alreaday wrote about that: Hornplease also claims that Aditya Prakashan, Voice of India, Rupa Publishing, Transaction Publishers, Har-Anand Pub. South Asia Books, World Archaeological Congress, Peeters and the other publishing houses that have published works or papers by Elst are "non-academic presses". He even claims that "Routledge India is not really academic, unlike Routledge UK."[11] I find this extremely culturally insensitive, and somehow this strongly reminds of the cultural chauvinism of the British Empire, where people like Macaulay said: "I have never found one among them who could deny that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia." Does Hornplease really want to say that Aditya, VOI, Rupa, and the other publishing houses have not published any academic works? Or that Indian scholarly publications are just "sub-academic", as with the "not really academic" Routledge India?
It might be true that some of these publishing houses have not exclusively published academic books, but it is downright wrong to say that they haven't published any academic books. Do you have evidence that in India and in the humanities/political sciences scholars publish in publishing houses that are purely academic publishing houses which only publish academic books? In any case, I know numerous scholars that have at least published some works in not purely academic publishing houses or even magazines. The citation by Elst that you were criticizing (it might be misquoted or out of place in that article anyway, but honestly, Elst's citation is the less weirdest thing in that article), comes from a book published by Rupa, a publishing house founded 70 years ago and one of the largest publishers and distributors of books in India. I don't know what job or position Elst currently has, nor do I think that it is terribly relevant, and he is also a recent graduate. WP:RS does not say that the author must hold a particular position, not even a Ph.D. And WP:RS is by the way only a guideline (not official), and maybe also biased toward the western situation, not the situation in India. How do you know that the book by Bryant is published by Routledge India? This website only says Routledge: [12] It is anyways a scholarly book.
I agree that his works should be used with caution, in some cases with more caution than other works, because he is a controversial author (otherwise he wouldn't generate such discussions). In many cases, authors like Elst should also be balanced with those of other authors. In some cases, I suppose that he is misquoted or not appropriate. However, your and Lkadvani's comments leaved the impression that you would like to see a certain point of view, represented by Elst and other scholars, banned. (for example you wrote:"I will ask you to return to the status quo ante and not cite him any further, and to remove any citations that you have added"). --Bondego 11:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Please stop citing that request without context. It is clear from the context that I was talking about a particular article and about a particular editors tendency to rely overwhelmingly on quotes from Dr.Elst. The manner of your reporting of this entire incident leaves much to be desired.
If it was only about a particular article or editor, you should have be more precise in your words, instead of talking "I will monitor the use of his name" etc--Bondego 19:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
And about your point about publications: the best that you have been able to say is that one or two Dr. Elst has been published by established publishers, which I do not deny, and that those publishing houses have published some academic books, which I do not think is correct. You will have to cite that those meet standards for peer review. The central point is that Dr.Elst has not published even one book with a well-known academic press, and not even one paper in a peer-reviewed journal. WP:RS does not say that a source should hold a particular academic position (What position did Machiavelli hold?) but when an academic source today has never held a position, to claim that he can be a source when there are literally hundreds of people who have held positions, and published widely, is an argument that you are going to lose. Hornplease 21:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, we have all ignored the exhortation above to be concise, sorry. Bondego asked how I knew Elst did not regularly publish peer-reviewed articles. Answer is because I searched and nothing came up. He obtained his PhD only recently? No, eight years ago, ample time to have had papers published in journals. We were asked for our views about his suitability as a source for specific articles. The more I read about him the less I can see he fits with WP policies or guidelines. There is an external link on his article that alleges a connection between him and a Belgian party so extremist that it has been banned. I don't know if that's true or not, but it should ring alarm bells for sure.Itsmejudith 22:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
What would be the name of that group? I doubt that it is fascist, anti-semitic or islamist, since Elst has written so much against this in his works. Elst has also written in one of his articles that he is not proud of his earlier views. I don't agree with many of his views myself, but say "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" I have answered the other things above. --Bondego 08:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Well if Elst is banned, all Indian authors pretty much must go as well, especially Romila Thapar (Marxist sympathizer), Irfan Habib, and pretty much all of Hornplease's definition of "mainstream". Bakaman Bakatalk 01:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
You clearly havent even read the argument. Elst is not going to be 'banned'. And my definition of mainstream is not a personal definition, its the mainstream definition of mainstream, so there's nothing much that can be done about it without violating NPOV. Hornplease 05:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to quote a recent edit [13] by a well-known editor and admin who is a specialist in Elst's field and has contributed hugely to articles on Ancient India: "Elst is a long way indeed from representing anything like scholarly consensus (bruahah!). Nobleeagle is perfectly right that he is one of the "more quotable voices" arguing in favour of OIT and anti-AIM and what not. That is little to his own merit but a consequence of the circumstance that most people writing in this gist are a bin of raving lunatics and national mysticists. So Elst as an author who is not completely round the bend looks comparatively good, and if we do want to discuss the issue, he is about all there is to discuss. Yes, there is no alternative to clearly labelling Elst as a fringe author. My comment to Nobleeagle was intended to say no more: Elst may be mentioned as a fringe dissenting view without turning the whole discussion into a surreal joke. It will not do to portray Elst as anything else, or present him as the only reference in any context." I could not have said it better, and I trust that this discussion is now closed. Hornplease 05:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I have answered some things above. About the quote: Considering that it is clear that the quote comes from someone who is rather biased against than in favor of Elst, it is quite fair, and I have also elsewhere seen, that he is often simply one of the few ones (of the ones who represent Hinduism) taken seriously by the opposing groups in controversial topics. --Bondego 08:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Elst isn't "banned", he is from outside peer-reviewed academia. We have lots of fringe authors on Wikipedia. Elst can by all means be discussed in all detail in articles directly concerned with him, just as long as he isn't presented as 'established' in any way. It is hardly my or Hornplease's fault that your favourite theory is pretty much ignored in academia. This is all trivial per Wikipedia:Notability and shouldn't even need pointing out. We are going out of our way to allow semi-fringy authors in articles just to pacify you, but we simply cannot distort academic opinion to suit your agenda. Sorry, you'll just have to live with the fact that reality as you would prefer it is not generally considered likely, and Wikipedia really has no choice but to portray it that way. This has nothing to do with systemic bias in Wikipedia whatsoever. You may claim that there is systemic bias in academia, who knows, but that is not something we can address on Wikipedia at all. I, and I think Hornplease too, will be happy to discuss Elst as a fringy alternative view, contrasting it with discussion of mainstream. It stops there, it will not do to scatter references to Elst across Wikipedia pretending that he is a reliable source as good as any other. dab (ᛏ) 10:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
By the way, as is clear by anybody browsing Wikipedia, there are many on wikipedia that are quoted that have a Ph.D. in something unrelated or no Ph.D. at all. I made the examples of Bat Ye'or, Ibn Warraq, Robert Spencer, Andrew Bostom and Srđa Trifković, who don't have a Ph.D. in Islamic studies or are otherwise not mainstream, but are quoted often in articles like Dhimmi, Al-Andalusia, Criticism of Islam, Jihad and so on. Bat Ye'or is often cited in the Dhimmi article because she has simply written many books on the subject. Her books are pov, but she is probably cited because there is a lack of other authors writing on this, even from the opposite pov. Now I've even seen that in featured articles writers like Karen Armstrong are often cited. In the featured article Battle of Badr she is cited at least eight times, and she is also cited in articles like History of the Jews in Greece. (Battle of Badr is the only featured article that I looked at.) Is is a matter of good sense after all, i.e. an author should not dominate the whole article and should be balanced by others.--Bondego 19:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
About Bat Yeor, if you say she is quoted because 'there is a lack of scholars writing on this', you answer your own question. If Elst is quoted where there are no other sources, of course one can have no objection. However, that article probably does not exist. You further claim that several of these authors are quoted in articles about the criticism of Islam. Of course they are. In such articles, they themselves can be considered are primary sources. See my note on Ram Janmabhoomi above.
About Karen Armstrong, your concerns are persuasive; I am afraid I believe she should not be quoted if there is an alternative available.Hornplease 05:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Bat Ye'or is also notable because many of her books are about Dhimmis, and are detailed and from a particular pov, but her qualifications are not notable. There are some others who have written on dhimmis, Tritton and Fattal on the early history, Goitein and Cohen (mostly on the Jewish history). And of course Bernard Lewis and Norman Stillman.--Bondego 09:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
What he said. Karen Armstrong, Bat Ye'or, Sergei Triflovich, Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer and such are excellent examples of precedence to permit quoting by Elst.Hkelkar 00:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your contribution. Your concerns are addressed above. Daniel Pipes does not belong on this list, as his qualifications are acceptable. Hornplease 05:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
In that case we have at least one scholar that meets even your high standards, as this text [14] "has benefited from input and review by Daniel Pipes", and a similar text was also published in the Middle East Quarterly (the largest circulation Middle Eastern studies academic journal, where many tenured professors and policy practitioners publish), and of course in one of Daniel Pipes books. And if your researches didn't even find a western journal like the Middle East Quarterly, how much less the more obscure Indian journals, of which only few are indexed in international databases and secondary resources? --Bondego 08:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
When I search for author = Elst in Middle East Quarterly (2000-2006) nothing comes up. Perhaps it is the way I am searching. Please could you give the title/volume/number you are referring to. Also please note that the standing of Middle East Quarterly as an academic journal is contested. This is so rarely the case with journals that the issue is not addressed to my knowledge in WP policies. It might be possible to resolve it using journal metrics. Itsmejudith 16:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Here is the link: [15] --Bondego 17:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I hate to say this, but I think the MEQuarterly is considered quite suspect and is thus not included in most citation indices. I also take exception to your phrase "the more obscure Indian journals". Most Indian journals that are of international standard are far from obscure, and are part of several citation indices available online. I fear the only editor here making Eurocentric arguments is yourself. Hornplease 06:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Such harsh words on an academic journal should be backed up with sources. Juan Cole is not a neutral source, and he lacks sufficient academic background in Israeli history, culture, politics. How many journals does India have, and how many of them are indexed? Maybe many of the major ones are indexed, but only a few ot the total, and the indexes are more incomplete than the western ones, one of which made you miss the ME Quarterly. --Bondego 09:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I see I missed the link in Middle East Quarterly because it was earlier than the dates for which I have immediate access online. Let us leave open for a moment the question of whether that publication does or does not have the status of academic journal for Wikipedia purposes. MEQ's publisher, at least in recent years, distinguishes between types of entry in the publication. This is normal; the citation indices always distinguish articles from book reviews, editorial comments, letters etc. I note that in the case of MEQ there are "articles" that are often but not always by academics and "brief articles" whose authors are not usually academics. This is similar in some ways to a context I am more familiar with: journals in applied social sciences that have practitioners writing as well as academics; the practitioners' articles are distinguished from the others and it is made clear that they are not peer-reviewed. We do not have available in the link to Elst's piece what status it is supposed to have. However, a cursory glance at the text and its references shows that it is not a scholarly paper. It doesn't report findings from original research and the vast bulk of its references are non-academic. It resembles a feature or op-ed piece in a political comment magazine and that is the status it should be given in Wikipedia. What could be cited authoritatively in Wikipedia is Elst's PhD thesis. Or if he has published in Indian journals that are regarded as authoritative in that country but missed by the major citation indices then those cases should be carefully considered. Itsmejudith 08:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Have you read our discussion so far? Elst's article was one of the regular ones in the journal. ME Quarterly has many articles on current politics, not only on political science. Read a few of them. What should Elst's paper cite? The Quran? And become the second Rusdhie? Please see the perspective. It is about Rusdhie, not about political science. At a time when even many normal book publishers wouldn't publish the Satanic Verses, what do you think, how many academic journals have published about Rushdie? They didn't have the courage. And Elst later published a similar text that was reviewed by Daniel Pipes and published in one of Daniel Pipes books. And many of Elst's texts are not missing in original research. Elst's article was maybe even the first about Rushdie in an academic journal. Elst was by the way also the first who wrote about the anti-semitic nature and the nazi-parallels of V.T. Rajeshkar in one of his books. But as a consequence he is controversial, no doubt. --Bondego 08:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biased Editing of biographies i.e. Kancha Ilaiah

A danger becoming apparent is that biographies of critics of racial/ethnic/religious discrimination are vandalized for political motivated ideas and purposes. This is done by biasedly editing (For example insert word "claimed instead of said", use of obscure critics, politically sympathetic to a the vandals view, and who are made the main points of references, while their defenders are not)to devalue their viewpoints and their said causes. A good point of comparison is south african whites and aparthied. They(political supremacist whites) could claim that even though apartheid was wrong, trying to acknowledge the atrocities is bad form, that no continued racist or prejudiced views or practices exist. They could also belittle the subject by trying to defame or devalue Nelson Mandela, Rt. Rev. Desmond Tutu by saying they are not valid figures and they are just causing trouble by trying to get justice, using obscure supporters who happen to be pro-white supremacist or anti-black south african, instead of using unbiased true sources. Then they will not accept anything similar to happen to their biographies of their sources who cannot be questioned or scrutinized or they claim bloody murder.

Instead in this case the culprits are Right wing casteist(vedic uppercaste)hindu-centric supporters(Dislaimer: I make a distinction though, as hindu is a very ambiguous term used to apply to a lot of religious movements, I am not addressing new non-casteist or refrom acknoledging caste problem recognizing movements , "lower" caste or original dravidian or southern indian i.e. non-caste saiva, original tamil or kerala religions as rumored by onam and Mahabali, and even the coorgs, practices that actually did not include the caste system and were later subordinated to the vedic religion which introduced caste/racial segregation practices)who are the culprits, trying to devalue anyones point of view that speak for(and come from) the oppressed sections of indian society, which would to their ire reveal the black marks of their view or religion which is what Kancha Ilaiah does. Its funny that they always use their "holy" triumvariate of "authors", Koenraad Elst, David Frawley, Francois Gautier as "serious" sources to critize pro-dalit or civil rights movements in India. They are so fanatic about this triumvirate that will make attack against any similar "editing" or criticism of these authors, showing them to be the prejudiced hypocrites they are. These culprits try to absolve themselves of any wrong doing they claim that any other person not of the their political view or critical of it are being prejudiced or racist themselves in actuality the opposite is true.

Valid claims are made in that no one group of people is perfect, but where they invalidate themselves is making false claims that other wrongs and atrocities have not been addressed and dialogued and continually acknowledged, while there is a supposedly "unfair" scrutiny of the wrongs perpetuated which to them were actually not that bad and need not be discussed or addressed.

Awareness needs to be made that this kind of vandalizing of biograhies and articles will not go unnoticed. User:Hkelkar and User:bakasuprman(could be a sock puppet) are the primary culprits of these sort of actions and should stop editing biographies to their political liking. --Kathanar 13:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC) - signature added after the fact, sorry

Check the talk page of the article on Kancha Ilaiah for an admin mediated debate on this. There is no bias in the article. I believe that certain bigoted elements are trying to tout racist propaganda on wikipedia loading it against Hindus. Despite the fact that I am NOT a Hindu, they respond to legitimate criticisms by character assassinations and ad-hominem attacks like the ones above. If this persists then RfA's will be filed.Hkelkar 18:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
If you believe that people are trying to load Wikipedia against Hindus then you have come to the right place. What can you cite to back up your claim? By the way, the mediator on talk:Kancha Ilaiah ended by apologising for not being able to resolve the conflict, so the questions raised about that article are presumably still open for debate. Itsmejudith 20:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Derogatory edits against Hindus are commonplace on wikipedia.Not a single edit against Hindus have been scholarly, but polemical in tone. Citations are typically done to Fundamentalist Muslim websites and Xian Fundamentalist websites. This would not be so bad if they were QUALIFIED as such. For months, Hindu Nationalist articles were full of absurd POV put there by Mujahids and Bible-Thumpers with an agenda. I have been striving for weeks to make scholarly corrections with cited sources, kept such if non-partisan, qualified if partisan. One whack-job even went so far as to proudly tout anti-Semitic canards against both Hindus and Jews in the V. T. Rajshekar article.That pretty much drew me into wikipedia as it HAD to be fixed.Hkelkar 20:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I resent any user calling me a sock. I will not participate in any discussion until useless name-calling has ceased.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Look at the rather arduous edit war with Kancha Ilaiah. Users trying to brand this guy as the incarnation of Christ/Mahdi/Muad'Dib/Sai-Baba/whoever were exposed for their POV, and I sourced statements that both Hindus and Muslim denounced him as an anti-Hindu on several occassions (in Hyderabad). Also, his writings were censured by his university, and criticized by other scholars as being biased and borderline racist. These legitimate edits were contested and the contesters defeated both by admin sanction and by user consensus. If an anon ip want's to call me, a devout Jew, a "Vedic Upper-Caste Hindu" then I cetainly can't stop him. I advise that editors follow wikipedia policy of citing non-partisan sources or partisan sources with appropriate qualification(s). ANY VIOLATION OF THIS POLICY by a cabal, sock farm or anyone is grounds to IMMEDIATELY file RfA's and get users banned/blocked/defenestrated/whatever-it-takes. I am sick to death of people making biased and unscholarly edits with no sources that bring wikipedia's reputation down and becomes a forum for racist propaganda launched by extremist and fanatics disguised as moderate editors, from Rabid Mujahid terrorist-sympathizers, Bible-Thumping Xian fundamentalists, radical militant Zionists to extreme Hindu Nationalists.Hkelkar 20:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Hkelkar seems to alway making extreme statements in the hopes that people will just take him at his word and pursue actions fitting his agendas and biases. And why is he always explaining that he is a "devout Jew"? Nobody is going to know that, he can hide behind whatever identity he wants, we wouldn't know if its true. He needs to be advised to restrain himself from his actions.--Kathanar 20:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
And User:Kathanar needs to stop the drek, trying desperately hard to hide a clear disdain for wikipedia policy and wantonly making personal attacks in my talk page and the talk page of admins User:Ben W Bell (look at it).Hkelkar 21:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Bottom line is that as long as edits are sourced and qualified then nobody can remove them or else it will be vandalism and bans will be the result.The rest is all POV, unsubstantiated, and, frankly, quite disgusting on Kathanar's part. Pity that this good page has been taken over by trolls.Hkelkar 21:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Say all the nonsense you wantUser:Hkelkar, if you continue on this path, the good name of wikipedia will be besmirched by your negative attacks and political biased editing. Its good I and others have joined or wikipedia will be left to extremist writing element without any voices of moderation. This is just a start to a return to responsible editing and writing --Kathanar 21:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


I agree that sourced information should be kept per policy. There has been some vandalism going on wherein the citation no longer matches the content. RVs to make them match again shouldn't be considered vandalism. Why not let a neutral third party look at the content disputes and let him decide which items to keep and remove based on the sourcing? zephyr2k 21:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed a neutral third party needs to get involved to counter all this vitriol--Kathanar 21:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Vitriol? Perhaps users should become less confrontational before making such harsh accusations.Bakaman Bakatalk 22:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow. A long time ago (day before yesterday) I asked for examples of Wikipedia's bias against Hindus. So far we have one example of such a perceived bias, V. T. Rajshekar. That's a start. The first things I notice when looking at that article is that it badly needs wikifying and that it does not conform to WP:LIVING. It's a biography of a living person (yes?) so it needs date of birth and biographical details and the sourcing needs to be excellent. Anyone like to sort those points out and then the question of balancing the article to improve its NPOV can be addressed? Any other examples of articles biased for or against Hindus? Itsmejudith 23:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well nobody knows when he was born or what. Plus, the citations presently provided are from legitimate scholarly sources like "Poliakov, Léon (1994). Histoire de l’antisémitisme 1945-93 (P.395). Paris", and Dalit Voice's own broadcasts used as primary sources. I have tried to correct as much anti-Hindu bias as I could find. As for other articles, I believe that the 1971 Bangladesh atrocities does not contain enough about the genocides on Hindus in B'Desh during that time. Same for Hinduism in Pakistan .Plus, several articles, such as Aurangzeb,Babar and Pakistani nationalism contain biased, insulting anti-Hindu POV put there by islamofascist editors, particularly Pakistani nationalism.Plus, the article Caste is unfairly biased against Hindus; more detail is needed on the Caste system in Yemen (I have provided some sources) as well as the color-caste system in Latin-American countries to balance out the POV. The Indian Buddhist Movement is being vandalized repeatedly with unsourced OR that has insulting anti-Hindu connotations (and most of the article is factually unsourced).Plus, expansion of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh is needed, with balanced edits added to indicate their social service works and their passionate support for Israel. Somebody needs to add more about the persecution of Hindus in Hinduism in Bangladesh. An article about Hinduism in Malaysia needs to be created and the rampant persecution of Hindus be listed there, together with the achievements and cultural traits of the Malay Hindus. Same for Hinduism in Fiji. More history is needed so that article on Hinduism in Guyana and Hinduism in Suriname can be created/expanded.Heck, look at the whole Hindu Politics category and remove all unsourced edits or deliberately mis-sourced edits with anti-Hindu POV.Hkelkar 04:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Plus, a lot of biased rubbish in Sangh Parivar that come from partisan sources that are cited without qualification. 90% of these articles are unsourced. Same for Vishwa Hindu Parishad (which doesn't strictly speaking, even exist and reminds me of anti-Semitic attacks on Jews like the mythical "Jewish Lobby" or Blood libels).Hkelkar 04:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this systemic bias?

The content of Order 66 has almost nothing to do with Judeo-Christian theology, but at one point casually throws the words "Satan" and "Mark of the Beast" out there without specification of Christianity, apparently assuming prior knowledge of such things on the reader's part. It never occurred to me before that this kind of thing might have been in violation of Wikipedia policy. elvenscout742 22:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it is systemic bias but it is just one of the many things wrong with an article that I don't think is needed in the first place. (However, I guess it might survive an AfD process.) When I have a minute I will do some shortening there and add tags to indicate that there is no source for any of the assertions it makes. Or you can go ahead and make changes to that article anyway. Itsmejudith 13:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
See if you think my edits have improved anything. I put a note on their talk page too. The regular editors there may be upset, indeed they may think I have disrespected the Jedi religion, but it is as well to open up the discussion. Itsmejudith 14:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] to-do list

The project page says, "If you would like to help, please inquire on the talk page and see the to-do list there." Where is this to-do list? I'd like to add Collections of ancient canons --Espoo 00:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Desperately seeking and expert on Buddhism

Desperately seeking an expert on Buddhism to sort out problems with Buddha's Relic and Jetavanaramya. It was in articles needing wikifying, but unless I and another editor can find out where the text comes from, whether it is notable, and some other basic details, we don't even know if it should be merged, deleted, or what. It doesn't appear to be a controversial issue, but I can't even tell that for sure. Leave a message on my talk page or just pitch in and edit the article. Thanks. Itsmejudith 09:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] religioustolerance dot org

I came across over 700 links to this organization, Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. The site has a ton of ads but on the other hand, it has content (and a Wikipedia article).

Normally, such an ad-intensive site with so many links gets attention at WikiProject Spam for further investigation. Even if it's not spam, many links may often get deleted as not meeting the external links guideline. I've left a note at WikiProject Spam asking others to look at some of these and see what they think.

Even some non-profit organizations will add dozens of links to Wikipedia since links in Wikipedia are heavily weighted in Google's page ranking systems. (If interested, see the article on Spamdexing for more on this).

You can see all the links by going to this this "Search web links" page. I encourage you to look at Wikipedia's external links guideline then look at the links in the articles you normally watch. Also, if you don't mind, please also weigh in at WikiProject Spam with your opinions. If you see links to pages that you don't think add additional value beyond the content already in an article, feel free to delete them, but please don't go mindlessly deleting dozens of links. (Per WP:EL, links that don't add additional value should be deleted but that doesn't necessarily mean they're "spam").

Thanks for your help and for providing some second opinions. --A. B. 16:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Category:Religious leaders

The current organization there is abit muddled, and needs some discussing how to deal with. A general proposal for cleaning it up is posted at Category talk:Religious leaders#Organization proposal, and more input would be great. It doesn't address the issue of Religious leaders/religious workers/religious figures, but that is another issue that exists. Badbilltucker 21:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment

I have noted that this project does not yet engage in assessment. I am a member of WikiProject Religion, which does engage in assessments. I was wondering if this project would have any objections to the Religion project setting up its banner in a way similar to WikiProject Australia, WikiProject Military history, and others, which have the "parent" banner on top with the assessment criteria and a section below indicating which particular projects have specific interest in the article. I could set up the Religion banner in a way to accomplish this. However, given the complexity involved, I would not want to do so and have things changed back later. Please inform me if this arrangement would be to your satisfaction or not, so I can know how to proceed. Thank you. Badbilltucker 14:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like an excellent idea to me. Itsmejudith 08:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Is there a project banner for this project for which the assessment criteria could be added? And, if not, is there any particular image which comes to mind which the members of the project would like to see included on the banner? Badbilltucker 18:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Banner created and assessment page and related links in the process. Badbilltucker 17:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Similar proactive project

For anyone who might be interested, the recently formally constituted WikiProject Religion is to a degree trying to proactively achieve many of the same goals as this project. It's main stated goals are to work on a variety of articles which deal with religion which fall outside of the scope of any of the other Religion projects, and to work on those articles relating to religion which do not currently fall under the scope of any other projects. We also hope, perhaps somewhere in the future, to create subgroups to deal with any religions or creeds which do not fall under the scope of other, more focused projects. So, for instance, we wouldn't create a task force/work group on Methodism; we would leave that to Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity. However, we would be very interested in welcoming any new members who might be interested in working on articles on Baha'i, Ayyavazhi, Falun Gong, and any of the world's other, often underrepresented, religions. If any of you would have any interest in joining the group, we would be more than happy if you were to do so. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I like WikiProject Religion better. The title assumes good faith a bit better. I'm sorry, but I'm withdrawing from this project in order to help Bad Bill with his efforts. I find the idea of a new project exciting.NinaEliza 19:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For Your Attention

There is currently a discussion about whether or not to rename/move Paul of Tarsus. -- Pastordavid 01:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias_in_religion_71b2.html"