Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discrimination against non-Muslims in Malaysia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was

[edit] Discrimination against non-Muslims in Malaysia

For reasons see: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Discrimination against non-Muslims in Iran. Copy and past of US State Department report. The title is POV and the source (US government on Islamic country) is not neutral OneGuy 21:05, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete POV title ... and would we post on Wikipedia Iranian government report on Israel or the US? OneGuy 02:31, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete POV title... Zain 02:29, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • NOT DELETE - the source was initially a US report which formed the basisfor contribution by actual Malaysian non-Msulims. Sources cited in the article are actual Malaysian media sources. POV is not grounds for deletion. Its grounds for correction and modification.--Malbear 04:28, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • As you can see above, another problem with the article is POV title. The relevant parts should be moved to an article with the title Religious minorities in Malaysia OneGuy 04:59, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • How is the title a problem? If an article describes "Discrimination against non-Muslims in Malaysia"???--Malbear 05:40, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • "Religious minorities in Malaysia" would necessarily define other religions in Malaysia while "Inter-faith relations" would define non-discriminatory relations....they are all seperate knowledge domains. --Malbear 05:40, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • so why does that get to keep the POV title and not this??? Xtra 07:57, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • That title was not created by me, nor do I have any thing to do with keeping or moving that article. Read the discussion. It's being voted to move OneGuy 08:01, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • i am not voting on this one. that one has been sitting like that for ages. Xtra 08:16, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)]
          • That one is like what, two months old? This one is more than year old. OneGuy 11:43, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Another neutral title would be Human rights in Malaysia or Status of religious freedom in Malaysia. The current POV title has to go OneGuy 05:46, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Retitle and Keep This is not the only attempt at discrediting US State Dept. findings about Islamic nations. This is a program: a quick review will show who is involved. --Wetman 06:41, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Retitle to just Discrimination in Malaysia and keep. Valid subject. Most of the content were indeed contributed by Malaysians. --Andylkl 07:16, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • "Discrimination in Malaysia" is not a NPOV title just like "Discrimination in Israel" would not be NPOV title. What's wrong with "Human rights in Malaysia" or "Status of religious freedom in Malaysia"? OneGuy 07:27, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • The thing is that those two titles you had suggested are just beating around the bush. If there's a problem in Malaysia, just point it out bluntly and stick straight to the facts. --Andylkl 07:30, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
        • That's not NPOV. You claim there is problem in Malaysia (others disagree) and some claim there are problems in say Israel (and others disagree). The policy of wikipedia is NPOV. The title has to be NPOV, and then you can discuss your disputes under NPOV title, not POV title OneGuy 07:34, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • Literally it's true discrimination exists in Malaysia, but discriminations exists in the U.S. too. Discrimination is just too loaded a word, but then again, the bumiputra system itself is obvious racism. I'm sure there are many who disagree, so I don't think the idea's a good one. Johnleemk | Talk 08:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Move as per above. Under the right title, this is a perfectly valid encyclopedic topic. Alleged discrimination against non-Muslims in Malaysia perhaps? Whatever we do, keep it. Just don't keep it at the current title since it does appear POV. The article itself is POV, but that's a different matter (and surprisingly, the material I find most POV is not from the original State Department report). I find it's ironic that the Malaysians are the ones voting to keep this, don't you think? Johnleemk | Talk 07:36, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Alleged discrimination is long and still POV. The two titles I suggested "Human rights in Malaysia" or "Status of religious freedom" in Malaysia are perfectly NPOV OneGuy 07:39, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • No, it's not. It's a fact that the discrimination is alleged. Not an opinion. Johnleemk | Talk 08:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • I don't like that title. That opens the door for articles with the titles like Alleged Israeli violence against Palestinian children, Alleged discrimination against non-Jews in Israel, etc. This won't end the controversy. What's wrong with "Status of religious freedom in Malaysia"? OneGuy 08:12, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • I don't see the point of associating this article to other (future?) Israel-related articles. Btw, this article shouldn't be here on VfD in the first place if you had read Wikipedia:Deletion policy carefully. Articles which are POV needs cleanup and not deletion. --Andylkl 08:22, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • We are not talking about article that needs "cleanup." We are talking about POV title that cannot be "cleaned up". That title has to be deleted completely once the article is moved OneGuy 08:45, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Then why is this article up on VfD in the first place? Any complaints regarding the title of the article should be discussed at the relevant talk pages and move on from there. A request placed in VfD is a request to delete the article entirely. --Andylkl 09:06, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
        • And what's wrong with those titles? If they're excessively long, redirect them. I see nothing inherently POV about them; they're valid encyclopedic topics. Johnleemk | Talk 08:23, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • True, but in this case there are better titles available, like Human rights in Malaysia. There is currently no article with that title. This information should be part of that article OneGuy 08:47, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • And if you manage to get it your way, there would certainly be too much information about discrimination to fit in an article about human rights or religious freedom, and it'll inevitably gets splitted. Back to square one. --Andylkl 08:57, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
      • If (and that's an assumption since currently there is not even that article) the Human rights article needs to be splitted, it will have to be splitted to NPOV titled article, not this one. That's not square one :)) OneGuy 09:15, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes it's an assumption. But I'd have to say that avoiding the word "discrimination" (if splitted) is not really an option here, as the discrimination part are facts and not just mere opinions. Like what I've said in the talk page, the only thing POV with the title is the "against non-Muslims" part. =) --Andylkl 09:21, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
          • And as I replied, not everyone agree that discrimination occurs. That's your opinion, not a fact OneGuy 09:25, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • It's a fact discrimination does occur, but it's too loaded a word to appear NPOV. Counter-intuitively, it is NPOV, yet appears POV. That's why I think it should either be balanced out by "alleged" (or some synonym of it) or removed entirely. Btw, I've never heard anyone, even the most ardent defender of Malay rights disagree that discrimination exists; they just argue that it's fair and justified. Johnleemk | Talk 09:48, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • As an example: Not everyone agrees that 9/11 was caused by Al-Qaeda hijackers, does that make the current 9/11 article POV? --Andylkl 10:00, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
        • And what is the title of 9/11 article? September 11, 2001 attacks. The title doesn't even use the word "terrorist attack" (just calls it attack -- let alone Al Queda). That's NPOV title OneGuy 10:40, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • My previous comment wasn't regarding the title of the article directly. I think you do know what I meant. --Andylkl 10:52, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Retitle and keep (and then rewrite the article to match the new NPOV title) gK ¿? 08:44, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - This is US state communication material: it is not an attempt at fairly reporting on the subject. It is fundamentaly biased for it is the expression of a country 1) at war 2) christian. Also, there is no point in blandly duplicating this material. IMO it's worth a link but not duplication in WE. Gtabary 11:41, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Have you read the talk? Most of the controversial material in the first place is not from the State Department's report. Also, we're not duplicating it. Look closely. Johnleemk | Talk 16:17, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge or move. The US State Department reports are generally a credible source, and are public domain, but the article title isn't NPOV. The article content itself seems relatively neutral. Shimeru 20:42, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, diplomatic warning without context. Wyss 22:09, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • delete for the same cases as other discrimination against non-Muslims in some countries article. or at least retitle and restructure the sentences to adhere to NPOV __earth 00:30, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Change my vote to retitle or merge with other article. This is a human rights issue after all. __earth 05:19, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Conti|✉ 03:06, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. Good info! --L33tminion | (talk) 06:41, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Retitle, and CleanUp. Needs to be conformed to NPOV policies. - Mailer Diablo 09:28, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. Jayjg | (Talk) 02:33, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. Megan1967 01:33, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. Carrp 23:35, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.