Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious persecution by Muslims

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 keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Religious persecution by Muslims

Fork of Persecution of non-Muslims to avoid get around VFD of that article. Author of the article is pushing an anti-Islam POV on numerous articles. ~~~~ 07:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC) User:-Ril-

This article is neutral, as manifested by the lack of POV complaints. --Germen is not the only contributor to this article. When persecution of muslims is a legitimate article, why Religious persecution by muslims is not? Note that no objective reasons have been stated to delete this article. All attempts seem to focus on my supposed bad faith. --Germen 12:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Update: I have added a discussion[1]. --Germen 13:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Update: This VfD seems to be an attempt to support the RfC [2] complaint against me: one of the charges which are levelled against me is the "spurious" creation of articles. Note that it is not Wikipedia policy to forbid the creation of articles and that this article describes a real-world and proven phenomenon. Note that the ones who sponsor the VfD (like Ril and Axon) support a delete vote just for one reason: the supposed bad-faith of undersigned. The propable reason is my supposed anti-islam bias. --Germen 08:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete ~~~~ 07:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that this user User:-Ril- actively pushes for a RfC for me. --Germen 12:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Note that the above statement is mildly inaccurate. I co-signed an RFC that was also co-signed by a large number of other users disturbed by Germen's editing behaviour. For those that are interested, the RFC is available at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Germen ~~~~ 19:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Note that one of the accusations in aforementioned RfC is the spurious creation of articles, as manifest by the frequent VfD votes on them. These VfD votes originate from users with a known pro-Islam bias, e.g. Irishpunktom, which propably mobilize supporters in order to win the vote. So the VfD accusation can be seen as an example of blaming the victim in the totalitarian tradition. --Germen 09:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I think if you change the word "By" (in the title and some of the sub-sections) to the word "OF" this article makes alot more sense. The author seems to be writing in terms of persecution OF Muslims. I read the article and much of its information seems to be covered in the blue links I followed. Perhaps some of this material should be Re-Directed or Merged with the existing material. I think an edit would help this page. A historical record of the persecution of any population certainly warrants notable topic status, and the tone of this one seems largely historical rather than an opinion piece. Hamster Sandwich 07:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete There is already a Persecution of Muslims article, this page is yet another opportunity for Germen to spread his anti-muslim propaganda (he's already created numerous pester pages that have all been deleted through lengthy VfD). I see no reason not to cover the same subject matter in the Islam article. Also I'm not sure that religious persecution can be used in this sense: when I hear the term I generally think of people being persecuted for their religion, not people being persecuted because of religion. Axon 09:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Persecution OF muslims is completely different of persecution BY Muslims. Failing to see this difference is symptomatic for user:Axon. I did cite verifiable sources, so what I wrote cannot be classified as biased anti-Muslim propaganda. --Germen 12:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I was referring to Hamster Sandwich's remarks. Your continued attempts to contradict votes and harrass voters here and on other VfDs are not welcommed. If nothing else but for the sake of your own arguments, please desist. Axon 12:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Legitimate comments on factual inaccurate statements cannot be classified as harassment. Your continued argumentum ad hominem attacks and logical inaccuracies are not welcomed. --Germen 12:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC).
        • You haven't actually highlighted any "factual inaccuracies" other than mis-reading my remarks. Your continued attempts to shout down opposing votes is not doing you any favors or making people more inclined to vote in your favor. Axon 13:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
          • As I said, responding to remarks is a valid discussion practice and cannot be considered harassment. Thus your remarks are logically inacurate. Note that your continued attempts to shout down opposing voices are not doing you any favours of making people motre inclined to vote in your favour, for as far that matters. Wikipedia is not a democracy, so arguments are more important than votes. --Germen 13:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Persecution of Muslims is not the same as Religious persecution by Muslims. In fact, it is totally different, making yours a moot point. I don't see how you can miss this (or expect anyone to fall for it). Furthermore, I would think that more people were persecuted for not being of a certain religion, than for being of a certain religion, which in my opinion makes this article more relevant than Persecution of Muslims. I am not sure what you're trying to pull here, but I don't like it. --Dv 14:53, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Huh? Axon 16:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Can you please come up with a better response? If not, I will have to assume that you have some sort of agenda which beyond simply making a valid contribution to wikipedia. TIA. --Dv 16:40, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV fork. --Viriditas | Talk 09:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Vote pending result of VFD on Religious Persecution by Jews - This article was created first by Germen, and I, apparently very unwisely, that a "Religious Persecution by..." series to be a good idea. I had planned on including every major World Religion and Atheists (Communists, and perhaps French Revolutionaries, etc). However all in-all out, and if the jewish one goes I'll nominate Religious persecution by Christians too.

--Irishpunktom\^talk 10:16, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Finally I agree with Irishpunktom on something. The idea of "persecutions by the followers of religion XXX" is unwise. Don't mix fanaticism, ideology, politics, greed, etc. with religion (one's relationship with god). ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed, we should focus on the religious reasons for persecution others. Hence the title, Religious persecution by Muslims. We try in the article. --Germen 13:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV fork by problem user. Dcarrano 10:54, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Also "problem users" can suggest useful articles. Also, it is not proven I am a problem user. A decision on deletion should be taken by checking the article on its merits (or lack thereof), not by judging by person. --Germen 12:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Main problem with the precursor of this article was its title. The title has been changed to the more accurate "Religious persecution by Muslims", which is a valid entity. --Germen 12:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Argumentum ad hominem. This article is neutral, as manifested by the lack of POV complaints. I am not the only contributor to this article. When persecution of muslims is a legitimate article, why Religious persecution by muslims is not? Note that no objective reasons have been stated to delete this article. All attempts seem to focus on my supposed bad faith. --Germen 12:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Update: I have added a discussion. --Germen 13:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep all viruses of the mind must persecute other viruses in their struggle for existence (unfortunately). Dunc|☺ 13:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

the only virus of the mind is the one that dismisses all other metaphysical belief systems as viral, and rather arrogantly claims a monopoly on truth. christians, muslims, jews, hindus, and atheists have all proven themselves prone to this virus from time to time. Ungtss 22:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep for the same reason I supported keeping the Religious persecution by Jews, by Christians, by atheists, and other articles in what could have been a great series. Unfortunately, the "How dare you speak ill of my people?!" brigades in each community will never let these articles survive. Too bad. Wikipedia can still be a good resource for noncontroversial topics. It's just not mature of enough for sensitive ones. Babajobu 13:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I do not see why this should not be documented. Dv 13:59, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Note, this user has less than 50 edits to his name[3]. Axon 14:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • And? Dv 14:13, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • See WP:SOCK. Axon 14:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
        • I have and I am thus far still missing your point. Please elaborate. Dv 14:22, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
          • For the purposes of voting, editors with less than 100/500 (can't remember which) or so edits can be considered sock puppets. This should be referenced in the sock puppets page. Axon 16:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
          • Axon, I have checked Dv's edits and he does not seem a sock puppet to me, but rather a new user which has contributed to several useful articles, e.g. about programming languages. It is Wikiquette not to bite newcomers. --Germen 16:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
            • And whose sock-puppet am I? Dv 16:40, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
        • Axon, agressive attacks on other users will not favour your case. (sic) --Germen 15:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic, POV fork. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Jayjg, can you motivate why this article is unencyclopedic and POV? Also: persecution BY muslims does not qualify as a fork of persecution OF Muslims, it is a completely different subject. --Germen 09:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, there're similar articles on other religions, and I dare someone to claim that there isn't pertinent information for this article's expansion. Shem^(talk) 14:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. But it would be nice if the creators of these articles covered that pertinent information from the start. --EMS | Talk 15:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Valid topic but poorly written and obviously incomplete. It covers too little and takes too long to cover it. On the other hand it is well organized and opens the door to better. --EMS | Talk 15:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I have amended my vote as noted above in response to the edits by Hamster Sandwich. The article is now much more focussed and useful. It still needs a lot more research and work. However, it is easier for that to be done when the aritcle is present than when it is not. Also, I for one would like to see Religious persecution by Jews done properly and in keep-able fashion (as is not currently the case, even with my own edits). A page such as this may help to inspire and guide those who can do a good job with that one. --EMS | Talk 01:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and merge in Persecution_of_non-Muslims. Also keep other articles in this series. the wub "?/!" 15:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but with the reservation that we should take a decision that the persecution by... articles should either all stay or all go. DJ Clayworth 16:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• (user has less than 50 edits) Keep Unlike ceratin other articles created by IrishPunkTom as a smokescreen for religious bigotry, this article started out well researched and well sourced, and shows real potential to be a proper and NPOV article dealing with the religious persecution of non-Muslim faiths in Muslim lands and Muslim religious doctrines.Existentializer 16:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Why the constant Personal Abuse toward me? I've only seen your name on the two VFD's before. Why is Religious persecution by Jews considered "religious bigotry", yet Religious persecution by Muslims "a proper and NPOV article". If you know so much about the history of the Jews, can't you help NPOV of the Jewish one? --Irishpunktom\^talk 17:17, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • I am not involved in any "personal abuse" towards you. I do however, after reading the versions of the other two articles which you created and after reviewing your talk page and your edit history, feel that you have a strong enough bias and that you are not behaving within Wikipedia policy. The two pages you have created are violations of NPOV and WP:POINT as referenced by Jayjg, while this article deals with something that is a very REAL phenomenon today as well as in the past. Existentializer 18:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
      • I absolutely reject the logic behind this vote. I worked on this article much more than I did on the other "Persecution by..." articles, but there is absolutely no way you can support keeping this one and dismiss the others as "religious bigotry". Either you accept the general concept of articles covering persecution committed by particular religious groups, or you don't. To accept one such article and reject others is, ironically, a pretty clearcut case of "religious bigotry". Babajobu 08:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I have a feeling that if we delete one and we keep another it will mess up the whole point of the religious persecution series.Heraclius 17:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but I don't really see any true persecution in the article, other than the bit on Iraq in the 1940's. Needs better organization. --Bayyoc 18:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic POV magnet. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:10, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • SlimVirgin, can you motivate why this article is unencyclopedic and POV? --Germen 09:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. There is religious persecution by people from all walks of life. I initially wanted to vote keep, but it's highly unnecessary, IMO. --Thorns Among Our Leaves 18:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • True, but only the Koran is replete with verses like 5:51 in the mix. Religious persecution under Islam is a matter of state policy, which begs a significant distinction and is worthy if note and NPOV study.Existentializer 18:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, but this article is begging for controversy and vandalism. If there were a way to possibly clean this up to deter as much controversy as possible... I change my vote to abstain. Thorns Among Our Leaves 18:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • To say that ONLY the Koran makes statements like 5:51 is a generalization and is not accurate. What did Jesus mean when he said "If you are not with me, then you are against me"? Have you read of the Israelite's campaigns against their neighbors? Making statements like "only the Koran" suggest that you have some beef against Muslems, thus diluting the arguement to keep the article, which I support as long as it is historically accurate.--Bayyoc 19:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah, the wonderful mistranslation and taking out of context. Try this link with regard to that verse; the Vulgate version is even better but you have to be able to read Latin. And just FYI, the translation of that verse is HEAVILY debated since the same verse in Mark reads the other way: "For whoever is not against us is on our side." On the other hand, the Koran verse stands without question in its own context.Existentializer 19:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Precisely my point! This article is a lightning rod for controversy. If it is to be kept, there surely has to be some way to reduce this factor to avoid silly squabbling like this. Thorns Among Our Leaves 19:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Fine. I admit I was too lazy to look the verse up, but my paraphrase isn't that far off and the context seems the same. The point of both 5:51 and Jesus' statement is that there is only one way to salvation and, frankly, I don't see the problem with 5:51 in that it reserves the punishment of sinners to Allah. Not one of the three religions is innocent of bloodshed and if you have articles about Christian and Jewish attrocities, then you are obligated to examine Islam as well. If there ever were Christian, Jewish, or Muslem attrocities against other religions (and there certainly were), you are obligated to to examine them. The "Persecution by..." series seems legitimate. If the content of the articles needs cleaned up, then clean them up, but I don't see how you can justify deleting them just because someone might get offended by them.--Bayyoc 19:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete For the same reasons as I gave, for deleting "Religious persecution by Jews." I will jus copypast those reasons here: "The name of the article is not encyclopedic. Something like: "Religious persecution in Israel" could get an entry, but for sure not this. It is simply a generalization of an ethnic group, and the support of a POV, the POV being that, an ethnic group is more than a social construct, all this, in the articles name alone. I think there should be appropriate rules here in Wikipedia, on what is an encyclopedic entry, this will spare us all the trouble of having to vote the deletion of articles that should not exist in the first place. This sort of article will only get answered by similar articles(I just hope they don't already exist), which the subject, and probably the aim, will be generalization. There is a distinction between directly criticizing a group of people, and criticizing an aspect... If I write an article like: "Religious persecution under king David's reign" or something such, I could write an encyclopedic article. I could of course, as well, write something like: "Religious persecution under Judaism." While this seems to be about the same thing as the article voted for deletion, it is not. In the same token, I could write an article, like; "Religious persecution under Islam." This will be an encyclopedic name, but not: "Religious persecutions by Muslims," or even more direct: "Religious persecution by Arabs" (I'm making the comparison, because being a "Jew," is not only being part of a religion, but as includes the ethnic group.) But I could write: "Religious persecutions under Arabic regimes." It is permitted to write about an aspect, or a system, etc. but not to generalize directly. Guilt by association is simply not encyclopedic. One way of knowing if a name for an article like this is encyclopedic, is to wonder if when using the name to criticize, it would be considered as a generalization. Having said all this, I think that the problem is not only with the name, but what the name could permit to write in the article, in this cases. We can not write with such a subject(the name of the article/subject), a real NPOV article, so it will be unwiki, and it's existence will inevitably lead to failure." Fadix ^{(My Talk)} 20:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Change vote: Keep, but change the name of the article: This article is much more worked around than the other, and a name like: "Religious persecution under Islamic rules" would rightly fit the content of the article. Fadix ^{(My Talk)} 21:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • You say: One way of knowing if a name for an article like this is encyclopedic, is to wonder if when using the name to criticize, it would be considered as a generalization, but you suggest that Religious persecutions under Arabic regimes would be a valid title, which is inconsistent because the latter title is also a generalisation. You fail to give a reason why such generalisations should be avoided. Obviously, the article with a title like Religious persecution by Muslims does not imply that all muslims persecute all the time, merely that at some point in time group(s) was(were) persecuted by Muslims in a manner which warrants an encyclopedic article. Quite frankly, I don't understand the point you are trying to make I suspect that there is none. -Dv 20:45, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I changed my vote, as for your argument, I think I was clear enough in my answer in the other articles vote for deletion. Fadix ^{(My Talk)} 21:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• keep please Yuckfoo 17:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong KEEP I just applied an edit to the article. I hope it provides some clarity and more concise thought than the original. I was initially confused by the title (I thought the article was dealing with issues concerning the persection OF Muslims) but after reading it several times and also the comments here I applied an extensive edit to it. It lacks some information concerning internacine persecution of various Muslim factions. I only hope it might be helpful in deciding the issue. And to illustrate that constructive critisism is usually helpful in expanding the Wikipedia, whereas derision and obfuscation of the issue almost never is. Hamster Sandwich 00:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unless substantially revised with historiographical citations. El_C 01:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Volunteers welcomed. --Germen 14:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• weak Keep per my vote in Persecution by Jews. Together with DJ Clayworth, I agree that these should all stay or all go. Until policy is sorted out, I default to keeping all articles in this series. Xoloz 03:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Handle persecution according to the religion of the victims, because it's more salient than the religion of the perpetrating regime. Grouping by persecutors is problematic because their motivations are not necessarily religious (the regime may not have an organized religion) and those responsible may actually be a more diverse body of powerful individuals, both in terms of religious and other interests. --Michael Snow 03:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Revolución 04:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Revolucion has voted "delete" on Religious persecution by Muslims and Religious persecution by Jews; on the other hand, he has eagerly promised to expand the Religious persecution by Christians article. I agree that the latter could have been a great article and should have been expanded, but I question the motivation of a bourgeois playtime "revolutionary" who thinks only one religious group can commit religious persecution. I would discount this vote as bad faith. Babajobu 08:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

COMMENT: YOU MAY NOT DISCOUNT A VOTE JUST BECAUSE YOU DONT LIKE WHAT YOU THINK THE VOTERS REASONS TO BE. ~~~~ 19:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment: A vote without a stated reason is not valid as per Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not a democracy. --Germen 12:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Historically relevant. --malathion ^talk 11:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This is perhaps a noble idea, but these articles are already POV OR disasters. WP editors have enough problems dealing with prickly subjects as it is, without making up new ones. Any religious persecution by or of religious groups should be discussed in the articles that concern each religious group. Making up this series does not serve any purpose I can see, except to stir up animosities. If this series is kept, I foresee recriminations and accusations and the like leading to a dozen RfArs within a month. Tomer ^TALK 16:49, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Very strong keep because religious intolerance is a real and important phenomenon, both past and present. It cannot be properly studied just focusing on victims, because then you lose sight of its causes. Moreover, the dynamics of religious persecution (with its ultimate aim of forced conversion) has nothing to do with etnicity, and is already touched upon, very briefily, in the article on Coercion. So the article must be properly expanded, not deleted,This applies to the whole series of "persecution by" articles: --Mario 16:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Then why not just have the article religious intolerance than religious persecution by X. Note that this article is the most extensive of the series, the series being created to allow this article's existence, and to go "oh, look, its the muslims who are the worst", by having the islamic-related article the largest. ~~~~ 19:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree, that should be the final solution. Just one article with an overview section (dedicated to general forms of intolerance: the "how's") and then specialised historical sections on "intolerance by whom, where and when". However this requires putting together historical knowledge from widely different fields. So the practical idea is perhaps first to develop the articles separately and then (when some balance is reached) to merge them: --Mario

21:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Notable and encyclopedic topic. See also Jizya. Klonimus 23:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, along with the other "Religious persecution by x" articles, all of which appear to be anti-religious editorial rants rather than being encyclopedic. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. VFD votes are usually based on the article's potential, not its current state. -Dv 04:19, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with you, but I don't think this article (or the other 2) has much potential, as the title alone assumes Muslims (or Jews or Christians) are monolithic in their (mis)behavior. Much of the persecutions that have happened are not even necessarily related to religion, nor to all adherents of the religion en masse. I also believe much of the content in all three of these articles is already addressed (or should be addressed) elsewhere in Wikipedia in more specific and balanced contexts. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Merge all three (Religious persecution by Christians, Religious persecution by Muslims, Religious persecution by Jews) into a single article titled Faith-based persecution. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:03, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, same reason I gave for deleting Religious persecution by Jews: Allowing separate articles singling out persecutions by different groups is POV. Kaibabsquirrel 02:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. How can historical fact be POV? -Dv 04:19, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • The historical fact itself is not POV, it's the way it's framed. Articles titled "religious persecution *of* (fill in group here)" are okay, but "religious persecution *by* (fill in group here)" carries an implicit implication that Muslims, Jews, or Christians as a whole are responsible for persecution (as opposed to individuals who may also happen to be Muslims, Jews, or Christians), or that there is something systemic in the religions that leads to them persecuting others. That's implicitly promoting a POV against all three religions. Kaibabsquirrel 23:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all three. ElBenevolente 02:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Almafeta 02:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete all three, the template, and everything else related to this project. It's just a bad idea, destined to piss off everyone at the same time. In wiki articles describing specific, documented historical events, I would support having a "religion X persecuted group Y" kind of analysis. But trying to create a general "people persecuted by religion X" topic is the wrong way of doing it, and extending it to all religions and atheism, while it may seem neutral in theory, will only serve to attract the ire of everyone at once. This topic will turn into an endless edit-war and flame-war, with each side claiming to be absolutely right and the only one backed by historical evidence; a little like what happened with the Armenian Genocide page. Furthermore, like Michael Snow pointed out, making a "persecution by religion X" topic implies that religion X is a harmonious monolithic group with a single clear agenda; there is no religion on Earth for which that is true. Trying to group all actions of all sects and sub-groups of religion X over millenia under a single "things done by religion X" topic is a gross oversimplification of a very complex situation. Ritchy 22 July 2005
• Delete crazyeddie 09:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. BlankVerse ∅ 11:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Incognito 17:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Deletethis and all of the "persecution by (blank)" until a NPOV article can be written EdwinHJ | Talk 17:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• #REDIRECT all these Persecution by . . . articles to homo homini lupus est or delete them all. Persecution is by necessity an action by the powerful against the powerless, and while religion may sometimes provide a reason, it just as often provides an excuse, and equally often has nothing to do with anything. Delete them all. —Charles P. (Mirv) 19:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unsalvageable POV magnet. - Mustafaa 20:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• ...together with Religious persecution by Christians and Religious persecution by Jews, as unsalvageable POV magnet. These topics could in principle be valid, if not entirely encyclopedic, subjects for articles, but realistically we all know they'll become a permanent hotbed of POV feuds and requests for comment. But they should really get voted on as a group rather than individually; having some "persecution by" articles survive but not others would be scandalous. - Mustafaa 23:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• • If the "Persecution by" series gets deleted, so should the "Persecution of" series. The first series is the necessary counterbalance to the second. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 11:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Encyclopedic because it provides an opportunity to address issues specific to persecution by muslims. amazing how ad hominem wikipedians get in their vfd's. there should be a rule. Ungtss 22:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is becoming ridiculous. LokiCT 22:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

LokiCT (talk · contribs)'s 14th edit, made 36 minutes after his/her first edit. Voted "Keep" on VfD for Religious persecution by Jews. HKT ^talk 23:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. As noted, it's clearer when handled under the oppressed party, and is highly prone to POV insertion. Also, it's a bit ad hominem. While a whole group may be persecuted, it is hardly ever the case that a whole group is persecuting. Same for all "persecution by" articles.--DNicholls 02:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Though controversial, it's a necessary article, and could be quite informative if expanded, and watched closely for POV. Volatile 02:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete *Delete and delete the others in the series. These will be magnets for POV (as Mustafaa said), but that is not the only reason to delete. The real issue here is the precision of the term - "Religious persecution by ____" does that mean persecution by members of that religion against anyone? By the religion itself (and under what interpretations)? By any member of the religion against another religion as a whole? Is all of history covered? Is nationalistic persecution the same thing? Would the Jedwabne massacre be religious persecution by Christians against Jews, or a case of anti-semitism? Would Baruch Goldstein's murderous rampage be religious persecution by Jews against Muslims? Are the July 23, 2005, Sharm el-Sheikh attacks persecution by radical Islamists against non-Muslims? The articles do not have a clear definition, and are likely to be POV disasters that are not informative. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I think we must concentrate on the reasons of persecution. If this reasons are religious, so is the persecution. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 14:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

German, how do we know whether the reasons are religious? How would you define the examples above? In one case it was a group of Christians slaughtering Jews for the crime of being Jews, but it was not explicitly religiously motivated. In the next case, it was a lone crazy Jew who killed Muslims because of their religion, but did not represent a wider religious group. In the final case, Islamists were attacking others for religious reasons, but it is not clear whether the attack was persecution or not. The issue is that these articles seem destined to turn into a dumping ground for a list of everything that anyone of that religious affiliation has ever done wrong. Until someone defines the article series better, and what religious persecution is (as opposed to nationalist persecution, etc.), I would strongly urge to delete. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

GoodOldPolonius, I think it is not so difficult to find that out. If the perpetrators of persecution cite religious sources and religious reasons and those reasons are supported by theological evidence, we safely can assume it is religious persecution. Exactly because of that reason I added a section "Theological justification for/against persecution" in order to make this clear. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 07:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

That begs the question - lots of people appeal to religious motives, others do not cite religious reasons, but their actions are clearly religiously motivated. And what "religious persection" is remains anyone's guess. A good way to start would be for you to catagorize the three examples I gave as religious persecution or not. --Goodoldpolonius2 04:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Difficult indeed, Goodoldpolonius. Because people consider a religion to be their supreme frame of reference, it would be more logical for someone to attribute non-religious violence to religion than the opposite (unless it is all part of a propaganda war, in which it would be opposite in order to prevent defamation of the own religion). It is quite impossible to look into the perpetrators brain, so we have just their words and actions available as a reference. And the validity of the religious motives they gave.

As per your three examples-

• • • • • • • Christians killing a Jew for being a Jew per se are not acting per religious reasons, as there are no reasons in the Bible to kill Jews, except for the supposed responsability of the Jews for the crucifixion of Christ. This, however, contradicts the Christian dogma that Jesus died for all sins, including the sins of the Jewish perpetrators and the fact that according to the canonical Gospels Jesus asked for forgiveness for the ones who persecuted him. It can be cited as a (misguided) religious motivation, however.
            • The lone Jew who kills Muslims because of their religion can act because of religious reasons or not, I do not know enough about Talmud and other contemporary Jewish writings. The Tenach does not mention Islam, so cannot be used as a source for anti-Muslim violence. Only when Muslims are considered to be enemies of the people of Israel (as some right-wing Zionist groups do) there exists a religious reason for killing them as far as I understand Judaism.
            • The Sharm el-Sheikh attacks are partially motivated by religious reasons because of the suicide bomber element. A secular terrorist will attribute more value to hios life and will not expect a reward by God for his act (thus will choose another method of terrorism, like remote-control), while a religiously miotivated terrorist will and therefore prefers suicide as a sure means for achieving Paradise. There are some theories, however, that the harsh treatment by the Mukhabarat of Sinai Bedouins has motivated the killers. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 09:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Now you have me truly baffled (leaving aside the Jews killed Jesus bit which seems to be in your first response). Christian persecutions of a group is not religious persecutions unless the source documents of Christianity demand that that group be persecuted? So attacks on witches are religious persecution because of the commandment against witches, but the Spanish Inquisition and blood libels are not, because there is no commandment to persecute Jews? I am not even sure what your definition is, but it seems to require at the very least knowing the motivation of the persecution (which is often unclear) and a universal interpretation of each religion (which is not possible). Motivations for persecutions against other religions are usually multicausal, so how would you decide what is religiously motivated and what is not? --Goodoldpolonius2 15:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Right, you summarize it well. Note, however, that everything which violates the Highest Commandment as per Jesus, is in violation of Christian teachings. So persecuting witches is wrong, but Christianity commands them to be banned from a church or other religious group of Christians. However, agreed to some extent: religiously motivated persecution can still be a violation of the teachings of that religion. The persecution then results from a twisted interpretation of the religion. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 12:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Re Witches, the First Synod of Patrick pronounced excommunication on any who would persecute a Witch (they also declared witches harmless) see Celtic Christianity --ClemMcGann 13:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, this I didn't know. Thanks! --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 16:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

German - so I can get this right: the Spanish Inquisition, burnings for false Host desecration charges, and Blood libel are not religious persections by Christians? This definitely seems like a Catch-22, if Christians persecute anyone then they are not behaving like Christians, and therefore there is no Christian persection. What would qualify in your point of view? And how do you privellage one interpretation or another? --Goodoldpolonius2 15:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The persecutions of Jews because of the host libel are indeed persecutions and they were committed by Roman-Catholic Christians. It seems like a kind of cooked-up story to motivate antisemitism. It can be mentioned in the Persecution by Christians article I guess. The blood libel is I think old plain antisemitism. This myth surfaces at many places, most recently in Saudi Arabia. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 16:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Move or merge this isn't about religious persecution by Muslims as about Muslim attitudes to other groups. See my comments in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Religious persecution by Jews. --jnothman ^talk 15:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Not so. I described Muhammad's actions towards non-Muslims because they are the theological basis vor Islam's attitude towards non-Muslims, hence essential for u8nderstanding religious persecution by Muslims.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 16:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
    • But then, as you say, the purpose for giving this information is to explore their attitude, and not their persecution as such. This whole collection of articles should be exploring the attitudes of x to non-x's, and only looking at their acts of persecution in this context, because the acts of persecution cannot fairly be ascribed to the religious (or anti-religious) movement as a whole! But their attitudes can be discussed fairly. --jnothman ^talk 04:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
      • JNothman, note that the title of this page is "religious persecution by Muslims". So it is confined as per this title to clearly religiously motivated persecution, all other persecution is excluded. Exactly for the reasons you stated :) --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 07:15, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all articles on persecution by and of particular groups as long as they are factually accurate and verified. The desire not to offend any groups shouldn't stop us from deleting these. The fact that we can have articles on "taboo" and otherwise censored topics is one of the things that makes Wikipedia great. Note: This exact same vote has been made at all similar deletion pages. AndyCapp 17:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per MPerel and Mustafaa, along with the rest of the ill-advised series.Palmiro 19:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, controversial, but important series Salsb 00:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this is an important part of a coherent series of articles on religious persecution. --Zeno of Elea 14:43, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and improve - we all have an 'edit button'--ClemMcGann 08:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No idea why this and the others were listed for deletion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - this should be dealt with by Religious persecution by Mu'tazilites, or by early Hanafis or whatever group... as SlimVirgin said it's a POV magnet and there is no persecution by Muslims as a whole entity, but different groups and schools of thought have persecuted different things, there is no doubt in that. I would have no problem if this was a disambig page called Religious persecution by Muslim groups that linked to persecution by sects, that seems reasonable because at that level this can be dealt with in a way that is sane and not blanketing saying Qur'an quotes for and against persecution. Because, it is obvious that different groups have interpretted those verses differently. gren 16:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Gren, according to what you say, there seems to be a lot of confusion between Muslims themselves whether persecution is allowed or not and which incarnations of persecution are allowed or recommended. So, exposing the reasons why Muslims persecute others and what is the textual evidence which allows or contradicts persecution seems to be of encyclopedic interest. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 16:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
    • There is no Islamic ruling on persecution different Muslims have interpretted it in different ways. Also it is impossible to tell teh difference between political / power / and religious motivations. While I have no problem reporting what motivations can be cited for a Muslim group's persecution of another I think that what you want is exactly why this article should not stand as it does now. There is no answer that will give you the magical key to why some Muslims do what they do. And citing the Qur'an without references because an editor feels they justify persecution is original research... and that is precisely what is to be avoided. gren 16:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Gren, exacty for that reason I have added the Theological reasons section, in ortderr to differentiate. OK, if you think sources are lacking, then sources should be added. There are many articles which lack sources. Do you think all those articles should go? --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 16:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article is created for anti-Islam agenda. --Vsion 04:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • No, it's not. (Dv)
  • Then how come, the article is not listed as POV? Persecution of Muslims can be claimed likewise to promote a pro-Islam agenda, but has been retained anyhow. I think this two articles will counterbalance each other and provide Muslims and non-Muslims alike with reliable information, thus reducing misunderstandings. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 09:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • For proof of anti-Islam agenda, see [4]. You have confessed to it yourself. There's really nothing more to say. -- Vsion 09:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
    • That doesn't prove that this article has an anti-Islam agenda. It proves that it is his opinion that the world would be better off without Islam. There's no rule that one has to be indifferent to the issue as long as one is NPOV. Indeed, how would Nazism have been written if that were true? (Dv)
    • At the same article you can read why I believe a NPOV is sufficient to state my point, because I have objective reasons for this belief. If you think the Religious Persecution by Muslims article is biased, feel free to remove the bias and correct factual inaccuracies, but cite your sources. Censorship of free speech and preferring "respect" above facts is not a desired encyclopedic approach. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 10:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Haha... aren't you now giving yourself away for using sock puppets for double voting? :D --Vsion 10:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
        • You better not be implying that I'm a sock-puppet or I shall be very angry
          • Dv, are you saying you are not a sock-puppet of Germen? -- Vsion 18:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
            • Hello Vsion and welcome to en.wikipedia where a basic proficiency with the English language is assumed. Reasoning skills are optional, and often frowned upon, however.
            • I don't know what Dv means but I am a different person (i.e. physical human entity, so clear?) than he is. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 18:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
        • I am not a clone of user:Dv but a separate user, if that is your point. It is not necessary to employ this kind of tactics to prove my point. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 11:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
          • I'm amused by your "tactics", and the attempt of "minor insult" through a proxy (which is pathetic, btw) :D Vsion 22:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
            • How would you like this proxy to punch you in the face? Btw I'm glad you quit using bold to add dramatic effect to your comments.

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.