Talk:Infidel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007)
 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Reference to Christianity An Error

I have NEVER heard the term infidel used by a Christian or Jewish person, but only from the Islamic religion. Those who leave the faith or never had faith in Allah and Mohammad can be called infidel. This word may have been used in the past, but not anymore, and the Bible speaks of using only kind words too, just as is stated about the Koran in this article. If you are going to make a statement protecting Islam, you shouldn't be partial, because it isn't even Chrisianity or Judaism that uses the term today at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.20.182.201 (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not an "Islamic word". There are no English words. It is an English word with Christian roots used as a disparaging translation of the Arabic or Islamic term Kafir or non-believer.--Tigeroo (talk) 05:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Is not believing anymore in Santa Klaus an act of infidelity? Historically, the word "infidel" has been exclusively used to describe non-believers of the Islamic faith. For modern day purposes, Christians (believers of Jesus Christ as the Son of God), describe non-believers as either non-Christians or non-believers.

The term "unequally yoked" is used to describe the non-believing spouse in a Christian marriage.

Ariele 8 July 2005 02:24 (UTC)

The word Infidel has not been exclusively Islamic. Further to that point, it has been used, especially in Catholilicism, to describe Muslims, in particular in the 16th and 17th centuries (Well, that is what I'm reading now, so maybe it was more used in other centuries). The word used by Muslims is "Kuffr", orKaffir, or something similar. Indead this word, like the word "Salam" transcends national language and is used by English, Urdu and Gujarati speaking Muslims at least (As well as Arabic speaking Musims, but that point it obvious). Here, for example at http://www.catholicism.org we see the word infeidel as a word to describe "the Mohammedans" - an early european word to describe Muslims. At another Catholic Site ( http://www.newadvent.org ) we see the word used to describe the Turks. Pope Urban II, I think, made a speach which included "The cursed infidels have led away a part of the captives into their own country, and a part have they killed by cruel tortures. They have either destroyed the churches of God or appropriated them for the rites of their own religion.". Likewise here, we see it used to describe the Sultan of Damascus as an infidel by the Pope. Thus, I hope you can clearly see that the statement "the word "infidel" has been exclusively used to describe non-believers of the Islamic faith" is utterly wrong. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:05, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ==Yuber is trying to remove all references to Islam calling unbelievers infidels

Yuber is ignoring the consensus above and has decided he wants to remove all references to those who are not believers being called "infidels" in Islam and is inserting lies into this article saying "there is no such word" etc... --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 01:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Listen Chaosfeary/Fones/whatever account you're using now, there isn't that much difference between the two versions. Your version for some reason has a link to the Dirty Kuffar video, and that is totally inappropriate in a disambig page. Your version also says that the word kafir can also mean a denier or concealer, but that's not true since that is it's original meaning.Yuber(talk) 01:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
The Consensus version never mentioned the Soul Salah Crew and their non-Charting hit "Dirty Kuffar". Yubers version is thus straightforward, logical, NPOV and actually makes sense. --Irishpunktom\talk 01:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Archaic Usages

The Christian reference in the first sentence is to archaic use; IMO, the only reason "Christian" is listed at all is because -- allow me to hazard a guess -- certain persons feel an overmastering need to indulge in "tu quo" logical-fallacies concerning anything with the least possibility of casting Islam in a negative light (i.e., "Well, others are doing it too', see?").

I've added an linked archaic tag to qualify Christian. Yuber has removed it once, and I have re-added it with comment suggesting he come here and discuss it.

If he removes it again, I'll remove Christian. -- Fair, no?--Mike18xx 04:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

No need for the logical fallacy stuff... I do agree that I only have heard kafir used as infidel... and not the Hindu or Christian terms... I wonder if we can find any scholarly articles on that. It seems to me that typically conservative Muslims and conservative Americans use that translation. Would anyone have any idea how to find some legitimate source on that? Right now it's just our perception of the term's usage. gren グレン ? 00:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who is an infidel

The article now says:

"kafir" is used for atheists and the followers of other religions apart from the People of the Book (generally taken to be Jews, Christians and Samaritans), and is often translated as "infidel". It may also be used in some contexts for Peoples of the Book.

I would love to see a source for this quote, which strikes me as odd because the quote first says that the term "kafir" does not apply to "People of the Book", but then it says the term does apply, but does not specify when. The definition of "kafir" that I know is "a person who refuses to submit himself to Allah (God), a disbeliever in God".[1] No specific treatment for Jews and Christians, as you can see. Another elaboration on the term kafir says that it "was also used of Christians who believe in the divinity of Jesus" [2]

They surely disbelieve (la-gad kafar 'llazina) who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah (himself) said: O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evil-doers there will be no helpers (al-Ma'idah 5:72).

Another quote confirming that "kafir" encompasses Christians:

According to the Raddu 'l-Muhtar (vol. iii, p. 442), there are five classes of kafirs or infidels:

  1. Those who do not believe in the Great First Cause,
  2. Those who do not believe in the Unity of God, as the Sanawiyah who believe in the two eternal principles of light and darkness,
  3. Those who believe in the unity of God, but do not believe in a revelation,
  4. Those who are idolaters,
  5. Those who believe in God and in a revelation, but do not believe in the general mission of Muhammad to the whole of mankind, as the Christians, a sect of the Jews (sic).
(Hughes' Dictionary of Islam, p. 260)

Terms from Hinduism and Judaism, as the article says, are not usually rendered as "infidel", which alone is a sufficient reason not to include them in the article. Furthermore:

  • goyim is applied to people of non-Jewish ethnicity; it cannot be applied to Jews, even those who do not adhere to Judaism;
  • gentiles is not a term from Judaism;
  • nastik means "atheist" [3];
  • mleccha means "foreigner" [4].

Pecher 23:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

"Goy" is the Hebrew word for "nation". When used colloquially, it means a non-Jew in an ethnic sense. It is not the Hebrew word for "infidel". Jayjg (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
If kaafir means "a person who refuses to submit himself to Allah (God), a disbeliever in God", then clearly Christians and Jews are not kaafiruun. Is this your point? To take a definition from one of the better-known (Western) Arabic-English dictionaries, kaafir means "irreligious, unbelieving; unbeliever, infidel, atheist; ungrateful" (Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic. Again, clearly not applying to Christians or Jews. The word can, indeed, be used by Christians to refer to an unbeliever or atheist. But you can hear it used by some bigots to refer to Christians and Jews, so I think this is worth mentioning. And as you can see from the article on kafir, they are able to cite a religious justification for this. Palmiro | Talk 00:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Can you elaborate why you think it's clear that the definitions above do not apply to Christians and Jews? That is not self-evident to me.--Pecher 17:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I would think elementary logic makes it clear that Christians are not irreligious or atheists. Christianity is a religion and involves belief in God - the same God as Muslims believe in. Palmiro | Talk 09:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
A person who refuses to submit himself to Allah is clearly a non-Muslim because only Muslims, as their name implies, "submit" to Allah. Wehr's inclusion of "unbieliever" and "infidel" makes the definition sufficently elastic to include any non-Muslim; otherwise, it's unclear where polytheists fall in his definition, and they are undisputably kuffar, right? Also, the definition from Hughes quoted above unambiguously includes Christians in point 5. On top of that, Malik ibn Anas aplies the term ahl al-kufr to Zoroastrians and People of the Book, see Yohanan Friedmann, Tolerance and Coercion in Islam: Interfaith Relations in the Muslim Tradition, p.57.--Pecher 21:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how your point relates to mine. "Goy" is not the Hebrew or "Jewish" word for "infidel". Jayjg (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, my point was entirely in response to Pecher. I have no particular view on the inclusion of Jewish, Hindu etc. terminology as I have no knowledge of the subject. Also, I see I skipped reading the second half of Pecher's comments and thus misinterpreted his remarks (due to the late hour and my extreme time pressure and tiredness); however, the substance of my points stands. Palmiro | Talk 00:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi I have protected the page because of the edit war. Please try to solve this. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

WEll if we are going into etymology , kafir means one who hides . So if a person hides a horse , he is a kafir , he hides an elephant , he is still a kafir . You dont have to be a non-muslim for it. Secondly, the word astik is used in hinduism for religious/one who follows vedas . Opposite to that , is the word nastik , which means one who doesnt follow Vedas , he can be following any religion, or following nothing at all . Mleecha is anybody outsider .Though it mainly means foreigner , the word is & has been used for Muslims in India by Hindus . Like wise , Goyim means people , & its mostly used for non-jews . Watch al-jazeers , you will find "Die Goy" written on plestenian houses . You wont find it on CNN , obviously .

If we have to cite that Kafir means infidel , even when it means a dozen more things , then goy , nastik should be treated in the same way . If you guys see my version , it never said Goy/Nastik means infidel . It only said that the words are used in more or less the same way . And same is the case with the word Kafir . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 09:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

But the word "Goy" is not used in the same way as "infidel", as it does not have the religious connotations of the word "infidel". Jayjg (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
You mean all the talmud verses about Goyim spread all over the net are incorrect. May be the word doesnt have a religious connotation , but then jew can be both a race & religion . That might be a reason for usinf goy for both non-jew(by race) & non-jew(by religion) , & also ....cattle . I can understand this , because we have got the same problem with Kafir . A person hides a cow , he is a kafir , he refuses to give you back your money , he is still a kafir . If you cant include goy or nastik here, you shouldnt include kafir either . We can say that the word means non-jew , which means by race &/or religion . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 16:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the Talmud verses about "Goyim" spread all over the net are incorrect; usually falsified translations, or completely invented verses. See [5], [6], [7] Also, "goy" is not used to mean "cattle", that's just something anti-Semites lie about; see Goy. In any event, if you want to assert that the word "goy" means "infidel", you'll have to produce some reliable sources which back you up on that, otherwise it's just original research. Jayjg (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Al-Jazeera's anti-Semitic fabrications cited above belong to the same cesspool of bigoted hateful balderdash as fake Talmudic quotes do.--Pecher 17:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection: *Dude*....

...do you think you could lock it up after fixing/re-linking "kafir" to its Wiki entry? :-P --Mike18xx 00:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Only if the others agree. I could go link it if linking it isn't disputed. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Translation: You wish to conceal information -- information which justified its own Wiki page -- from Wikipedia readers browsing this entry, disingenuously justifying it with "others agree" duplicious obfuscating nonsense when your very reason for locking the page was disagreement. <sarcasm>Your steadfast commitmant to broadening the frontiers of human knowledge is duly observed; lemme see if I can dig up a star for yer user page, l'il buddy!</sarcasm>. Who do you think you're kidding?--Mike18xx 01:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah, somebody has recently changed "kafir" to a redirect to a rather overdone disambiguation page on "kaffir". I doubt if anyone will object to you fixing the link. Palmiro | Talk 00:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's two for restoring the link.--Mike18xx 01:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Count me in, too.--Pecher 17:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation needs to be moved to the top of the page

For the Infocom text adventure, see Infidel (computer game).

{{dablink|For the [[Infocom]] [[text adventure]], see [[Infidel (computer game)|''Infidel'' (computer game)]].}} æle ✆ 01:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I say let's just chuck the reference to the game, since it's over twenty years old, wasn't noteworthy when introduced, and is only a minor footnote of trivial interest to anyone who doesn't already know what they're looking for regard it (i.e., very few in-operation computers today could even run the game except in some esoteric emulation mode).
--The whole world is full of such minor references (antique "B"-films and shows, games, novels, lesser historical personages, etc) that do not warrant "permanent encrustation" status on abridged archives of knowledge. I.e., I'd assert more people are aware of a certain character in a certain episode of "Batman: The Animated Series" who yells "Infidel!" several times, than have heard of the computer game. ...and lookee here: Amazon.com sells ] with "Infidel" in their titles!--Mike18xx 11:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Usually heirarchical?

"one who doubts or rejects a particular (usually heirarchical) doctrine, system, or principle." What's the basis for "usually heirarchial"? Tom Harrison Talk 15:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

...the high correlation of instances of labeling people as "infidels" to their denial or abandonment of an orthodoxy with varying levels of authority? (E.g., nobody gets called an infidel for leaving the Hare Krishnas.)--Mike18xx 19:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Islam is not especially heirarchical, is it? Tom Harrison Talk 20:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Certainly not. I also wonder what is the source for the "usually heirarchical" assertion.--Pecher 21:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I put it in there as a qualifier to "doctrine, system, or principle" (and qualified it in turn with "usually"). Regards Islam -- it's certainly heirarchical whereever there are religious police (among other "layers") enforcing a particular figurehead's edicts regarding social mores. ("Heirarchical" is not synonymous with "uniform".)
Since it's rather ancillary to the subject, I won't get bent out of shape if no one else thinks it belongs...although I do.--Mike18xx 21:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The dispute

Kafir cannot be equated with Infidel because Infidel in English means anybody who doesnt follow a particular religious tradation . In Christian term , it is somebody who doesnt follow Christianity . Kafir on the other Hand doesnt include People of the book ( That includes Jews, Christians, Sabains, Zorasterans , & sometimes hindus too ) , & Ahl al Fatrah . Kafir only includes people to whom the message of Islam has reached, & still they refuse to accept it , & deny the truth . Since I found a link to kafir here ( a concept that is very different from Infidel ) , I also added other similar concepts from other traditions . The word is usually translated into English as Infidel juat because English doesnt have a word similar in meaning to Kafir , it doesnt mean that Kafir means Infidel .

Anyways , I dont see any particular reason of keeping Kafir here & removing Goy or Nastik , both of which are different from Infidel , just like Kafir . If we keep Kafir here , we keep everything else , if we remove everything else , we remove Kafir too . I you see my last version , it was never stated that Goy or Nastik means Infidel , it only stated that Nastik means non-follower of Vedas , Mleecha means non-follower of Hindu way & Goy means non-jew , just like Infidel means non-christian . But then it was removed & later on I was enlightened , I was told that the word Infidel is actually English translation of Kafir , & means non-muslim , what can I say , I cant even laugh on that . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 19:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

For better or worse, the English translation of the word "kaffir" is "infidel". No amount of original research will get around that. Jayjg (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Its all well documented facts (see Kafir), nothing orignal research . Translations.....whatever , Kafir is not Infidel . If English cant translate a word decently , its not my headache . You like it that way , remove everything other than Infidel . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 20:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
You may put the argument forward before English translators and say that they do a poor job, but as long as they render "kafir" as "infidel", we will go along.--Pecher 21:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Farhansher, Yuber, A.n.o.n, et al, apparently have no conception of the notion that they're not really accomplishing anything except to make Wikipedia disreputable. I.e., their whitewashing and propaganda will have zero effect -- because anybody reading this damn thing already has everything else on the web at their fingertips, and knows how to "route around 'damage'".--Mike18xx 12:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Pandering to popular beliefs that aren't necessarily based in reality also works toward making Wikipedia disreputable. Infidel is a term used by Christians hundreds of years before Islam came about. When Pope Urban II decreeded Christians to wage holy war against Islam, he referred to Muslims as infidels. I find the lack of this fact another reason why there are certain users attempting to slant Wikipedia facts to paint Islam in their own way. We've seen it occuring by the same cast on multiple articles. It is sad and has quickly earned Wikipedia the reputation of being a disreputable source for Islamic information. User247 23:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I am a happy infidel!

I like to see women's pretty faces. And their legs. Oh yes, I do. And a little alcohol suits me just fine now and then. Nevermind... this is no fun... I am no good at trolling... I guess that is why I am not a troll. *sigh* --PistolPower 20:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Nah its true you are a troll. Yeah we all know hedonism is fun, big deal. Its only an 'ism'. Portillo 10:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotection?

Mike18xx requested unprotection of this article on WP:RFP. Are we ready to go with that yet? howcheng {chat} 18:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The discussion seems to have stalled for days. Let's give it a whirl. Pecher Talk 18:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Done. howcheng {chat} 21:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence that "kafir" is used for all non-Muslims

  • "Kafir is a person who refuses to submit himself to Allah (God), a disbeliever in God".[8]
  • Kafir "was also used of Christians who believe in the divinity of Jesus" [9]

They surely disbelieve (la-gad kafar 'llazina) who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah (himself) said: O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evil-doers there will be no helpers (al-Ma'idah 5:72).

  • Another quote confirming that "kafir" encompasses Christians:

According to the Raddu 'l-Muhtar (vol. iii, p. 442), there are five classes of kafirs or infidels:

  1. Those who do not believe in the Great First Cause,
  2. Those who do not believe in the Unity of God, as the Sanawiyah who believe in the two eternal principles of light and darkness,
  3. Those who believe in the unity of God, but do not believe in a revelation,
  4. Those who are idolaters,
  5. Those who believe in God and in a revelation, but do not believe in the general mission of Muhammad to the whole of mankind, as the Christians, a sect of the Jews (sic).
(Hughes' Dictionary of Islam, p. 260)
  • Malik ibn Anas aplies the term ahl al-kufr to Zoroastrians and People of the Book. (Yohanan Friedmann, Tolerance and Coercion in Islam: Interfaith Relations in the Muslim Tradition, p.57)

Pecher Talk 08:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

We have got two other terms for whole people of the book & people who dont get the message of Islam . And ofcource , the first one comes from Quran itself , that was used for jews , christians & zoroastrins . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 08:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean here. Pecher <sup

You can't take "evidence" from an anti-Islamic site and present it as a neutral fact. Everyone will say that they lie, and there'll be another argument.

Kuffar DOES technically refer to all non-Muslim. However, the Shia and Sunni scholars warn against the excessive use of the word. A Hadith (saying of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH&HF)) also warns against it. So you won't see a Muslim calling all non-Muslims "kafir", even though technically it is correct to use it that way. Armyrifle 20:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Kafir

Several of these points in the Islam bullet point, the history and senses of "kafir" ought be taken up in the Kafir article. The only point that's on-topic here is that it's translated as "infidel".

Any feedback on these edits?Timothy Usher 05:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


Anon, no one said it wasn't pertinent to the term "kafir". The question was only whether it belongs in this article, or in Kafir.Timothy Usher 05:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


Apologies if I've killed someone's favorite point. Feel free to restore it. My mission here is very limited. We need somewhere to mention that the term is pejorative; it's only a matter of how and where.Timothy Usher 06:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology of term

Discussion of the etymology and history of the word "infidel" should be the central point of this entry, in my opinion. I'm not sure why some editors where so quick to apply Islamic and Judaic equivalents of the term to the page. A poorly written entry IMO.

[edit] Infidel is not a Christian or Jewish word

Infidel is a word strictly used by Islamic fascists who use it to describe the West and those who reject their ideology. I have never heard of a Christian call someone "without faith" an infidel. Nor have I ever heard a Jew say that, in Judaism they use the word Goyim, and in Christianity the worst word they use is Heathen. Clearly this is not an accurate description and I highly suggest that we rephrase this to the proper meaning. eternalsleeper

Some links:

[10]

[11]

[12]

Yes yes, politically correct, right? My point is that the only people who I have ever heard or read call someone an infidel is a Muslim calling a non-Muslim. I went to Bible school, no Christian or Jew calls anyone an infidel. I wonder if these people have lobbyists now in the Dictionary business.

eternalsleeper

"Infidel" is a Christian/ English term. There is no such term in the Islamic context or Arabic. It gained wide spread popularity during the crusades to refer to Muslims. Muslims call a non-Muslim Kaffir, which is unbeliever. Infidel is associated with it because that is what was the equivalent term in use by crusaders. Pagan, Heathen, Idolator have the same connotations but infidel is the term with Crusader history.--Tigeroo 08:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Muslim use Kaffir and not Infidel. Infidel is used by Western only. -- A. L. M. 14:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Order

Whether you look at Holy Land, Religious significance of Jerusalem or Abrahamic religion, the order is always: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Infact, I even had a dispute with Humus Sapiens on Holy Land. On 12:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC), Humus Sapiens said "I disagree with alphabetical sectioning. It is against chronological order...". Almost all scholarly works I've seen list religion in order of chronology and not alphabet.Bless sins 19:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The term "infidel" is used commonly in relation to Islam, rarely in relation to other faiths. Jayjg (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
That is not true. Please respect the order that is widely accepted. Infidel was used by Christians to denote non-Christians since the 15th century. [13]Bless sins 20:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "widely accepted". Alphabetical is "widely accepted" too, it all depends on context. A google search for +infidel and +Islam gets 1,100,000 hits. +infidel and +Christianity gets 721,000 hits. +infidel and +Judaism gets 246,000. We go with the order that's most useful to the reader. Jayjg (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg, google hits don't mean too much. "Widely accepted", means accepted in scholarly souces. It is almost always the case that Judaism and Christianity are metnioned before Islam. If you really insist on alpha order, then shoudl do so to articles like Holy Land and Religious significance of Jerusalem as well?Bless sins 13:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
We're talking about what is appropriate for this article, no other. What is appropriate here likely doesn't apply elsewhere. As for "scholarly sources", where did you get that idea? Jayjg (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The term is primarily an ecclesiastical term in Roman Catholic Christian Theology. As it stands there is little detailing of that here so I have marked that section as a stub. The fact is it is an english term with a Christian background that is merely used as an equivalent translation of the Arabic Kafir and was used to refer to the Muslims during the latter half of the Crusades. Kafir is translated to Infidel because during the Middle Ages that was the equivalent European term in use and is still used to imply and reinforce the religious connotation that make the press with Islam.--Tigeroo 11:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mlechha

Please join us here or comment here. I have rearranged the sections to improve the concept that Infidel is a similar term used in the same sense as laid out in the definition which while emphasizing usage within the Muslim/ Christian context doesn't not exclusively limit it's application to that sense.--Tigeroo 11:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

According to whom is it a "similar term"? Please review WP:NOR. Also, the etymological website you are using is a personal website, not a reliable source, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Jayjg (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I was asked to comment on the Sanskrit term mlechha (म्लेच्छः), which is defined as "a disparaging name for non-arya peoples" in the index to John Keay's India: A History, (p. 569) where it is mentioned frequently. The term comes up often in various usages. The root from which the word is derived is म्लेच्छ् (mlecch) which Apte says means "To speak confusedly, indistinctly or barbarously" which points to the original sense of referring to people who did not speak the same language. Here are the various definitions given by Apte (A Practical Sanskrit Dictionary, p. 776) showing several senses when used as a masculine noun: "1) A barbarian, a non-Aryan (one not speaking the Sanskrit language, or not conforming to Hindu or Aryan institutions), a foreigner in general; 2) An outcast, a very low man; 3) A sinner, wicked person. 4) Foreign or barbarous speech." When used as a neuter noun (म्लेच्छं) it means the metal Copper. Note that various compounds have special senses, however. For example, the compound मलेच्छभाषा (mlecchabhāṣā) means "foreign language".
You perhaps could make a case for mlechha as infidel, but I think that the semantics are different, as it is not based on matters of faith, but on racial difference or simply "foreign-ness" in its basic meanings. In Hindu philosophy, the technical term for those those persons who do not accept the authority of the Vedas is नास्तिक (nāstika; "heterodox"), with citations to be found at Nastika.
I looked up the word "infidel" in Apte's English-to-Sanskrit dictionary and found that the first term listed as a translation is nāstika. The word mlechha does not appear as one of the alternate translations for the term "infidel". Citation: p.227 of Apte, Vaman Shivram. The Student's English-Sanskrit Dictionary. Motilal Banarsidass, Third Revised and Enlarged Edition. Pune, 1920; Reprint, Delhi, 2002, ISBN 81-208-0299-3.
However the problem remains that the conceptual meaning of "infidel" in Hinduism is unclear to me. Culturally, Hinduism has dealt with many conflicts though a process of syncretism in which different views co-exist side by side, with mutual influence upon one another over the long term. So I am not sure if there is any really good translation that truly captures the semantics which the English word infidel suggests to me. Buddhipriya 08:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not a dictionary objection

If we agree to this concept then the only content on this page should be about the ecclesiastical concept of Infidel within the Roman church. It's usage as a english word that is an equivalent translation of kafir or associated extension towards other words that are labels of non-beleivers then can be excluded by an established principle and may be left mentioned in see also in such a case. The strange deal was the version reverted to also merely treats the definition of the word referencing the same dictionaries. Lets agree upon a principle then set it in place.--Tigeroo 22:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Modern dictionaries are helpful in understanding what terms mean and how they are used in English; certainly moreso than hundred year old unofficial Catholic encyclopedias, which only give narrow and out-dated views. In addition, the "See alsos" you keep adding are unrelated to this topic. Jayjg (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, but thats what an encylopedia is for, for the discussion of historical concepts ideas and its impact. Infidel has no value beyond the fact that it is a word used as an english translation for "kafir". Kafir is the entry where the Islamic information really belongs. Your argument on what the word means and how they are used in English is actually a reason for it to be in the Wikitionary and not a reason for inclusion in the Wikipedia. As you pointed out yourself, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Can you demonstrate that the term Infidel has another value in respect to Islam beyond being a translation of an Arabic word into English? Why stop there then, any foreign word/ concept that can be translated the same should find space in that case because as the dictionary says, the translation while being "used currently" for Christianity and Islam especially is equally valid across all religions.--Tigeroo 14:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
If you think the article should be deleted as a dictionary definition, then WP:AFD is your best bet. While it exists, it should reflect what reliable sources say reflects the modern usage and meaning of the concept. As for it being "equally valid across all religions", actually, no, not all religions are alike or share identical concepts, and in any event, if you can find reliable sources tying the concept and word to other religions, please go ahead and do so. Jayjg (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Not a problem. Modern sources can easily be found for the ecclesiastical term. I don't think WP:AFD is the right course for this article because it has uses that are not dictionary terms. If that however is the required method to get a authoritative direction for the use of this article vis-a-vis a dictionary term, than OK. In the meanwhile I will go restore associated notions. All it has to do in that case is fit the bill for one who does not believe in the central precepts.--Tigeroo 15:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
No, please don't restore the "associated notions", not until you have a reliable source indicating that they are, in fact, "associated notions". Jayjg (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
All they have to do is the fit the dictionary definition to be valid. I have tagged them where sources are lacking and will fill in the gaps. If I can't find RS I or you can remove them, it's work in progress. Actually I will self-revert pending a request for comment, since I don't really thing this article should be headed in that direction anyhow.--Tigeroo 16:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
"All they have to do is the fit the dictionary definition to be valid." = original research. Jayjg (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Those are all words for Infidel as well. They are clearly linked to the term Infidel as cited. Could you let me know which part of under which section of WP:NOR do you claim it falls under OR?? They are all words for infidel and the sources clearly link them and demonstrate that they are of equivalence in usage. The only other option that strikes is to revert to the non-dictionary sense because we cannot limit this article to the dictionary sense of the term.--Tigeroo 20:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
"Those are all words for Infidel as well. They are clearly linked to the term Infidel as cited." = original research. Beit Or 15:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Huh?? Which part of WP:NOR substantiates your claim?? With that argument it could be claimed that the dictionary definition is itself WP:NOR. Nothing in this article limits that other translations cannot be included. Infact this article should AfD otherwise since Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--Tigeroo 16:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:NOR: "any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article." Every item here must cite a reliable source that refers to the term "infidel". Every single one, without exception. You can't insert other items based on your personal view that it's a related concept. Instead find a reliable source that explicitly states it's a related concept. Jayjg (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Did you check the citations?? They DO directly relate the terms SPECIFICALLY with the English language term infidel. Wether as a dictionary definitions of Infidel or common use translations, every single term mentioned is DIRECTLY linked to the term exact term Infidel, not just the vague concept that I am creating a linkage with because I think they are have a similarity. A simple case in point are dictionary translations of Nastik and dasa as Infidel and the Encyclopedia of Social Work by the Indian Government that translates the word Mlechha as Infidel. How are these not stating the explicit relation of the term Infidel with the referenced word in the article or are not reliable verifiable sources?--Tigeroo 08:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

<reset>Buddhipriya has produced a better source than a government website showing that Mleccha is not a religious term. Arrow740 08:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there is has been a misunderstanding. The reference was not a website but en Encyclopedia on Social Work relevant to India. It was not the only solitary reference either, I stopped at about 2 different references that translated it as infidel. Plus Buddhipriya also indicated that Keay used it similarly.--Tigeroo 03:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
No, he didn't. The idea of an "infidel" would only come up with a religion where your ideas or beliefs determine your worth. As such it would only apply in Christianity and Islam. You seem to have a definite agenda to have this article say things to the contrary. Arrow740 20:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
"The idea of an "infidel" would only come up with a religion where your ideas or beliefs determine your worth." is entirely your opinion and the agenda argument can similarly be turned back onto you as well so please retain focus on the material and avoid judging motivations. The fact remains that mlechha has been identified with the term infidel in multiple sourced and cited material, that another source may not make the same connotation does not mean the link does not exist, just that it may not be the strongest one but it is one that exists and is verifiable. You were mistaken in the assumption that it was a singular instance and a website. Even more sources can be added or a modification of the entry. Any further issues with the citations?--Tigeroo 05:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
"..the believer and the Infidel (or, Mlechha)." (Encyclopaedia of Social Work in India, India Ministry of Welfare, Vol II, 1987, pg.69)--Tigeroo 19:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
No offense to India, but since when are they a powerhouse in dictionary making? btw, when was this dictionary published? JaakobouChalk Talk 14:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not a dictionary but an encylopadeia and the date is quoted (1987), also in the case of making a English-Sanskrit dictionary I would definitely say they are a powerhouse.--Tigeroo (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Judaism

I have tagged it as a stub, and inserted a sourced statement while leaving in the initial section. It is nice manners to discuss the removal, especially if you are going to do so for items marked up for others to improve as well as sourced statements.--Tigeroo 03:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, all material must explicitly refer to the term "infidel". The section in question says nothing about "infidel". In fact, what it says is "The Hebrew and Greek words for non-Jews, as used by Jews, are goyim and ethnoi which are translated as 'gentiles' or sometimes 'heathen' in English Bibles." Please don't use false citations again, it can actually be a blocking offense. Jayjg (talk) 05:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from sideswipe threats and keep the discussion cordial and assume good faith. If you have a particular concern about something cited, ask. Read the entire paragraph rather than the one sentence in isolation. The same paragraph talks about the term Infidel being used by Christians and Muslims for those not of their religions and then lumps all those terms as ethonocentric terms/ possible slurs for people outside their religious groups. That is what was cited in the article and that was said. They were equated as equivalent terminology in judaic vernacular to that of Infidel in the Christian. The equation was made and is not mine.--Tigeroo 14:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I have read the entire paragraph. Not only does it not say that "goyim" is the equivalent of "infidel", but it is quite explicit in which religions actually use the term "infidel":

"Infidel" has been used by Christians and Muslims to name the people outside their religious group, the ones who do not have faith (fides in Latin).

"Christians and Muslims". Not "Christians, Muslims, and Jews". Please don't abuse sources again. Jayjg (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Tigeroo, please stop adding this original research. I am informing you now, per WP:REVERT, that if you insert this again I will be using admin rollback to remove it. Jayjg (talk) 19:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Who cares whether you use admin rollback or manual rollback, the result is the same. Melsaran 01:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
No comments received appear to agree with your assessment. Comments from neutral parties involved in AfD & RfC's seemed to indicated that the consensus was that they are relevant and appropriate, being well sourced. Every item sourced is connected to the title as stated. I am open to any other seek direction from any other forum that you may seem appropriate to resolve editorial disputes.--Tigeroo 13:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
No comments dealt with this issue, or even commented on it; please do not make false claims. In addition, the sources themselves are explicit on what they say, and they only connect "Christians and Muslims" with the term "infidel". original research is not allowed. I'm not sure why you refuse to acknowledge that. Jayjg (talk) 13:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, he just re-inserted it, and I used admin rollback. He was forewarned. Jayjg (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
What ever admin rollback is it appears to be nothing more than the usual run off the mill revert you have engaged in towards your interpretation. No comments received appear to concur with your assessment. I disagree with the usage of admin powers over an editorial conflict in principle. Where may I seek addressal for a grievance over what appears to me to be a misuse.--Tigeroo 13:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:REVERT#Rollback is quite clear: "If you use the rollback feature for anything other than vandalism or for reverting yourself, it's polite to leave an explanation on the article talk page, or on the talk page of the user whose edit(s) you reverted." I did leave a note about it, right here. Jayjg (talk) 13:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Seems to be a better idea just to use manual rollback, the result is the same and you don't have to go through the bureaucratic process or get a fuss about it. Melsaran 14:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment: Infidel Dictionary Terms

This is a dispute of what is relevant for inclusion in this article. Guidance is sought on policy.--Tigeroo 16:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
  • Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The article should be focused on the ecclesiastical term which has grounds for an encyclopaediac article. A wikitionary link for definitions/ translations from other languages should suffice for redirection and does not merit a page on Wikipedia.--Tigeroo 16:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Modern sources are quite clear that the term "infidel" is used in more than just the very narrow Catholicism-centric sense proposed by the 1910 Catholic encyclopedia, and there's no particularly good reason to try to suppress that. Jayjg (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Comments
  • Wikipedia is not a dictionary only means that we shouldn't have articles that are nothing more than dictionary definitions, not that all verifiable definitions of a term can't be covered. Alternate uses for infidel should be covered in the article. Shell babelfish 19:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Would a wikitionary link not suffice that discusses the word in the English lexicon to that end?--Tigeroo 12:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Shell. Though, as this article currently reads, it seems like a dictionary entry no matter the meaning(s) being discussed. Douglasmtaylor 11:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Could this be a more appropiate alternate direction to take in order to make it a worthwhile page or should we just AfD it for being just a dictionaresque entry?--Tigeroo 12:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
That version was fine except for the original research at the end, where it tried to link in all sorts of other concepts from other religions. Jayjg (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that this article is compliant with WP:OR because it constructs a "novel narrative" about the term "infidel." That summary/content forks comprise much of the article only make it a strange novel narrative, at that. Unless there is mainstream (as in NOT "fringe") coverage of this topic in narrative form we can work from that, but from what I'm seeing this is best kept on Wiktionary. These novel narratives on Wikipedia tend to be awkward and troublesome, and this one is no exception. An AFD is best, or a "prod" if we all come to agree that this shouldn't be an encyclopedia article. The Behnam 21:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see it now. Linking to other religions renditions of Infidel i.e. Kafir, Mlechha etc. makes it a bit strange in relation to the topic, but then without that it tends to become a lexical monograph which really belongs on Wikitionary. The only rendition I see of having Encyclopedic value is the ecclesiastical term which historically had social and judicial ramifications for Christian laws.--Tigeroo 08:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately the AFD was closed prematurely such that I encountered an edit conflict when trying to vote, and found it had been closed. My delete argument is now on the AFD talk page, which renders it utterly useless. Not that it really matters anyway - the "keep" would still go even if people are unable to counter my argument. The AFD system is really screwed up, especially since many of the participants don't seem to really know what OR is. The Behnam 15:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the current version reads as just a dictionary entry, and I have two other problems with it: the inclusion of the word "offensive" (being an infidel is only a problem if what one doubts is the one true faith), and the inclusion of non-English words, alleged to be synonyms, in the alleged definition of an English word. The "In Christianity" and "In Islam" sections contain information that would more properly belong in articles about those religions. All that is left is a dictionary entry, not suitable for an encyclopedia. VisitorTalk 15:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Material from Islamonline.net

www.islamonline.net appears to be a website of unknown provenance. Can people explain why they are including material from it? Jayjg (talk) 13:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It has an article at least. And according to Alexa, it's the second most popular "Islam" site in the world. Seems notable enough to me. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 15:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
IslamOnline.net represents the views of scholars on Islam. Furhtermore it represents the views of mainstream Sunni Muslims as well. Saying that "Muslim scholars discourage..." is a fact. Muslim scholars do discourage the use (the evidence is on IslamOnline.net). Saying that "Islam discourages..." would require more reliable sources.Bless sins 20:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Very basic point: Websites aren't sources, but publishers. More relevant is the author of the cited material and the process (if any) by which their material was vetted.Proabivouac 21:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it's the publishers and authors that determine the reliability. I this case, it is Jasser Auda. His description says the following;[14]
  • He is the director of al-Maqasid Research Centre in the Philosophy of the Islamic Law (Markaz Derasat Maqasid al-Shari`ah al-Islamiyyah) in London, UK.
  • He is an Imam (or leader of prayers) in a mosque.
  • He has written a Masters thesis in the Islamic American University, Michigan, USA, on the fundamentals of Islamic Law.
Thus, although he isn't a scholarly source, his reliability is enough for the inclusion of a completely reasonable statement that most would agree with (i.e. the Qur'an, like other religious scriptures, commands the use of kind words).Bless sins 05:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The lead claims that the article will define the English word, infidel. It then proceeds to define an Arabic word which is alleged to be a synonym of the English word. Whether or not the explanation of the Arabic term is correct is irrelevant. If the article is about an English word, it should not also be about a non-English word. VisitorTalk 15:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hinduism section

I am removing the hinduism section as none of the citations provided do anything to prove that Dasa or Nastika is perfect translation of Infidel. Most citations are dictionary entries and per WP:NOT, wikipedia is not a dictionary. Dictionaries are meant to just give a loose translation of words and are useless in case of technical terms. Our wiki article on dasa and nastika will give you further details.

To further elaborate my point, none of these terms was used for Indian Jews (who have lived peacefully in India for over 2000 years) or the Zorostrians, who have lived in India since 7th century A.D. If anyone can find a derogatory term used for these communities by Hindus, they are welcome to add them in the article.

Although the burden of proof lies on those who want to add the information in the article. Still i would give a citation which clearly proves that there are no words for Kaafir or Infidel in Hinduism. Check out the section on Unique phenomenon in the book The Hindu Phenomenon (ISBN 81-86112-32-4) by Girilal Jain. Notice that the author himself is Jain, a Nastika tradition. --nids(♂) 08:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The citations for Dasa and Nastika do show the they can be translated as Infidel as well. As per the WP:NOT please see the AfD discussion and RfC received. My own personal position has been to agree with you on that score but it appears there is nothing wrong with the situation as long as the article is not limited to being just a dictionary term which is why we have this extension.--Tigeroo 14:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I did check the sources. They were all dictionary enteries. I will give you further examples on the fallibility of this approach when I get more time. BTW, from our wiki article on Dasa,
“ The present day usage of Dasa in Hinduism has respectful connotation and not derogatory. It always means 'slave of god'. ”
Similarly, term Nastika is explained in its own article. And AFAIK it never had derogatory connonations. Hope that helps.--nids(♂) 16:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
This article accepts the usefulness of dictionary definitions of the term. Also the quote on Dasa is based on presentism, while accurate it does not negate the historical narrative similarly Nastika, derogatory connotations or lack are also not an integral feature of the rendition or criteria for inclusion.--Tigeroo 11:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

As currently presented, the article is alleged to be an explanation of a word in English. Translation and discussion of words in other languages would be irrelevant.

If the original editor is eager to keep the article on Wikipedia, I recommend a change of focus to something like "the concept of apostasy compared between major religions," but such an article would have to very carefully use notable and verifiable sources, rather than consisting of original research. VisitorTalk 15:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hebrew word "Kofer"

Doesn't it has the same root as Arabic word "Kafir", which means "denier of the religion"? How come no one include in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.225.155.25 (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1910 Catholic encyclopedia

Tigeroo, per the previous Talk: page consensus, please do not base the article on the 1910 Catholic encyclopedia's entry. Aside from being both ancient and unreliable, the article focuses only on the term in Catholicism, not it's meaning in general. Please stick to modern reliable sources, as are currently used in the article. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The Catholic encyclopedia can be considered a reliable source for the Vatican's views for about a hundred years ago. If it is used in that limit I don't see a problem.Bless sins (talk) 03:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can see the talk page consensus makes NO OBJECTIONS to the 1910 Catholic Encyclopaedia, infact most of the comments left have all expressed dissatisfaction with it reading as a simple dictionary item when there is clearly a lot more to the term. Note the Cat Enc is an entirely RS source, what do you base your assertion on its failure at that level? Its just like the 1911 Britannica, the information may not be updated but it is not incorrect. Anyway I have a sourced and included a more modern source as well that confirms the term in traditional parlance and explains the church's move away from the term, and will include more other works as well. Also, the article does NOT limit itself to just the Roman Catholic version, there is a section that does talk about the modern dictionary meaning as well along with a link to wikitionary.--Tigeroo (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
There is consensus here that the 1910 Catholic encyclopedia (which calls Judaism as a "barren tree", Islam as ethically "inferior", Hinduism as "corrupted" and Martin Luther a "victim of scrupulosity") is reliable for nothing but for Catholic views. Even then it is only reliable for Catholic views from 100 years ago (since they have obviously changed).
I too express dissatisfaction with turning this article into a dictionary term.
The addition of modern sources is welcome.Bless sins (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is dissatisfied with an article based on an unreliable, parochial source, and instead prefers articles based on modern, reliable sources. Your version of the article not only turns it into a "simply dictionary term", but deliberately bases it on an unreliable source as well. We'll start from the version using reliable modern sources, of course, and then see what can be added. Jayjg (talk) 04:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe the discussion linked to by Bless Sins on the notice board gives a better snapshot of consensus on the issue of RS of the Catholic Encyclopedia. Your summary blanking of it as Non-RS is therefore unjustified. I have added a modern sources as well that translates the term into traditional usage and gives a rendition of the current English verbology and does not contradict the included information.--Tigeroo (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
It's an article about the whole of the term, not just its meaning in one faith, or in one expurgated meaning of the word. And please stop using 100 year old unreliable sources, thanks. Jayjg (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Your version is the one that blanks out its meaning and limits the article to just a dictionary entry in modern usage. Mine is the more complete one (albeit still a stub). The term and concept is rooted in Christian theology and medieval philosophical discourses, and has a significant historical impact over centuries. It is not merely an English word in modern use. That is just its predominant modern usage. Avoid the fallacy of presentism, the modern dictionary version has it's place in the article, but is only one aspect of the term Infidel. Various comments on this page have clearly indicated others editors concur that the limited "expurgated meaning of the word" as present in a modern dictionary is insufficient. If there is an error with the information cited than we can discuss/ correct those errors otherwise it is as RS as the 1911 Britannica and developments in theological implications over the last 100 years, if any, can be updated as required. If you cannot find factual errors with the material than desist from blanking cited material, if you do then replace with better quality sources. If any particular meaning appears to be "expurgated", add it. I don't see how blanking adds any value to the article.--Tigeroo (talk) 22:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to add more material to the consensus version, which is based on modern, reliable, unexpurgated sources, not 100 year old parochial ones. Any attempts to remove the modern meaning, in favor of a 100 year old Catholic meaning, will be unsuccessful. Jayjg (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
You need to demonstrate that the material incorporated is factually incorrect or cite the guideline sections under which you are basing your contention. A source being 100 years does not disqualify it under any policy or guideline. It meets the criteria of peer-review, notability and verifiability and the noticeboard accepts its authority in relation to the Catholic Church. "Parochial" views can be easily be edited out and updated with modern ones. If you have sources refuting the information presented, cite and source them for dialog. Blanket attempts at expurging and blanking information will be unsuccessful.--Tigeroo (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I just need to bring better, modern, non-parochial sources, which I have done. You must stop removing Islam from the lead, and stop removing modern reliable sources from the lead, since it is those modern, reliable sources that explicitly state the term's relevance to Islam. Jayjg (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
You seem rather to have removed references that have been added from a Modern source stating the same as well and huh when did this become about Islam? This was about Infidel?--Tigeroo (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
PS Please see Wikipedia:Using Catholic Encyclopedia material.--Tigeroo (talk) 06:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I have. This article is not going to be restricted to the Catholic meaning of infidel, regardless of your efforts to violate WP:NPOV in this way. Jayjg (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Then you have clearly seen that consensus is in favor of accepting the Cath Enc as a RS. Your personal stance is immaterial. WP:NPOV is about balancing with introducing opposing NPOV not about blanking so that argument falls flat as well in light of your actions. Please see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete. Please feel free to "add" material to balance any perceived biases.--Tigeroo (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
You can claim that there is a consensus for using the parochial, outdated, unreliable Catholic Encyclopedia, just as you can claim that the moon is made of cheese. However, back in the real world, neither is true. Please see WP:V, and please feel free to "add" material from reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
You might want to quote WP:V to show what you are referring to. You can claim it is parochial, outdated, unreliable and you can even believe the earth is flat, but you need ground those beliefs in concrete facts, Wikipedia's terms consensus, policy and guidelines. Waving them around and dancing a jig pointing to them is not enough. Numerous instances have been shown to you for its acceptability in wikipedia, those are the cold hard facts.--Tigeroo (talk) 10:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:SOURCES: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The 1910 Catholic encyclopedia does not qualify. WP:PROVEIT: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Prove that ancient parochial work is indeed reliable, and has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Jayjg (talk) 12:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Linked threads have already provided to prove it, no one disputes it fact-checking or it's reliability on Catholic matters but you. The only question has been if the position has changed since or if it has been used as a source for non-Catholic materials i.e. Islamic/ Judaic, neither of which apply the way it is used, plus the information has been corroborated and updated with a modern source as well. Accept it and move on.--Tigeroo (talk) 04:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Linked thread have already been provided to prove the opposite, and no-one asserts its reliability beyond a narrow early 20th century Catholic belief other than you. The only question is whether it satisfies WP:SOURCES: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." and WP:PROVEIT: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Modern, reliable sources give different definitions. We won't be basing these articles on sources that fail WP:V. Accept it and move on. Jayjg (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe the links provided say that the Catholic Encyclopedia is a valid source of information on Catholicism. I don't see the issue, it has not been used extravagantly nor has any factual error been noted in the information presented.--Salikk (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original research again

Tigeroo, please stop including Goy and Gentile as "See alsos", per previous Talk: page consensus. The terms do not mean "infidel", and, indeed, have nothing to do with it. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Gentile and goy show up in multiple references equated with Infidel. They are all words for "the other" and have as such been discussed together. I was not even aware of the word goy and only ran across it while reading up on the term Infidel where it was discussed as a similar word. It does not have to be a dictionary translation of Infidel to be related, and thats not my OR.--Tigeroo (talk) 02:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
"Gentile and goy show up in multiple references equated with Infidel." Can you provide us with those references? Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
We've been through this exact point before, and you still haven't found any reliable sources tying them together. Jayjg (talk) 04:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
In addition to earlier cited work (George Weckman, "The Language of the Study of Religion: A Handbook", 2001 pg. 64-65) that was got lost in your prior blankings here a more: Culture-on-demand: Communication in a Crisis World (pg 175): "Those "others" - goyim, pagan, infidel - appear prominently in the rhetoric of all three monotheistic faiths as impure, threathening .." and in Judaism and Islam in Practice: A Sourcebook (pg 147) "..'Not Israel' (the Gentiles undifferentiated) then corresponds to Infidel...", both books then go on to a lot more discussions on the similarity of the terms and earlier.--Tigeroo (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The first source, as was explained long ago, doesn't equate the two or suggest they are the same - see the quote from that source in the proper article that actually says what the term means - and the second doesn't match what is being said about "infidel" here. It's not enough to use google books to find a source that happens to use both terms. Jayjg (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
On the article Jizya, Jayjg makes the argument that if two things are in the same paragraph of a book they are related[15] (even though the two things at the article jizya are actually pages apart). Here on the other hand, the two things appear in the same sentence, separated simply by one word. Surely that is enough to warrant their inclusion in the "see also" section.Bless sins (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The sources DO uneqivocally equat the two and actually discuss just how they are similar and what the article does not say is information that stills need to be added. The article is clearly in need of more additional material to address that shortcoming that I shall fix. The issue in this thread is to provide support in literature for the inclusion of the terms in the see also section. The supporting information has been provided.--Tigeroo (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
So far it's one source, and the article doesn't relate them. In any event, no article can start based on a narrow parochial interpretation of a 100 year old unreliable source. Jayjg (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
One source? One hundred year old source? Do you know what we're talking about, here? We're talking about - in your own words - 'Goy and Gentile as "See alsos"'. To substantiate his position, Tigeroo has provided three sources. One was published in 2001 (by Weckman), and the others in 2007 (by Lull) and 2000 (by Neusner, Sonn, and Brockopp). None of them is "100 year old" and the oldest one was published just 8 years ago.Bless sins (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
His personal version of the article is based on the 1910 Catholic encyclopedia, and references it no fewer than 6 times; that's six times as many as any other source used. Weckman doesn't equate the "goy" with "infidel" - Tigeroo tried to claim that last year, but it was conclusively shown to be an abuse of that source. And his personal version of the article does not use Lull or Neusner as a source. Jayjg (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
It was actually conclusively shown as valid. I did not press your continued blanking of this article into your version of the article because we had gone for a RfC. Which actually shows an comprehensive dissatisfaction at the dictionary version and only a concern at the narrative I had proposed. I have since embraced those comments constructively, you need to get on the boat as well and contribute rather than hinder the development of this article.--Tigeroo (talk) 05:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Utter nonsense. Weckman doesn't equate the terms. Quote the sentence where he does so. Jayjg (talk) 00:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually in his personal version the sources entered as "Russell B. Shaw, Peter M. J. Stravinskas", "Online Etymology Dictionary", "Bjorkman, W. "Kafir" are each used twice - making the statement "that's six times as many as any other source used" inaccurate. Numbers aside, are you claiming that Tigeroo is giving UNDUE weight to the 1910 Catholic encyclopedia? If not then I'm not sure what your objection is.Bless sins (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
He has based his article on the 1910 Catholic encyclopedia's definition. We will not be starting with that as a base. Jayjg (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
This thread is about the issue raised on the see also, as such your comment on the basing it on Cat Enc is irrelevant, that discussion is held elsewhere. Also desist claiming consensus on the matter, when it is clear that it is only you.--Tigeroo (talk) 05:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes it is, and they don't belong. And it is not only Jayjg. I oppose the inclusion as well. Yahel Guhan 04:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
See over 4 sources cited that treat goyim, gentile as terms similar to infidel and kafir. What may ask is your objection to their inclusion based on beyond a personal belief that they don't belong?--Tigeroo (talk) 05:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
What sources? Catholic encyclopedia is menioned, which is not reliable to discuss the "treat goyim" Islamonline is not reliable at all. What other sources? Yahel Guhan 05:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Please see my post in response to Jayg on the same at. Currently the citations for the same are is fourth from the top in this thread. I agree with you that the Cat Enc is not a reliable source, or rather not an impartial source, for information on non-Catholic terms. I have used neither it nor Islamonline for this justification. Hope that solves your concern. I would also appreciate it if you took some time to review and preferable engage in the discussion before making a knee-jerk revert.--Tigeroo (talk) 05:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
And yet you base the article on the Catholic encyclopedia, and the meaning in Catholicism. Your knee-jerk reverts to that unacceptable violation of WP:NPOV will not stand. Jayjg (talk) 00:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Stop confusing the topic in this thread by dragging in a secondary argument here. The RS of of Cat Enc has been established at various forums across wikipedia and in this thread the relation of goyim and gentile to infidel.--Tigeroo (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the Catholic Encyclopedia has been denigrated as parochial and unreliable for modern topics. And you still haven't shown any relationship of "goy" or "gentile" to the term. I'll open a section for you to attempt to do so. Jayjg (talk) 01:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
And thats why after discussions and debates, the Cat Enc is cited across wikipedia and even has it's own template in the fashion of 1911 britannica. As for goy and gentile another user has already responded to that and I leave it at that. Please stop focusing on the position and back on the discussion.--Tigeroo (talk) 10:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Quite a few editors have already explained why it's unreliable and parochial, and should be used only in very circumscribed ways, describing Catholic beliefs in the early 20th century. It obviously shouldn't be used as the basis for a modern article on a topic, as quite a few people have already explained, including on this Talk: page. As for goy and gentile, there has been a response of source, but not one justifying the terms inclusion in the See also section. Jayjg (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The Catholic encyclopedia has been denigrated as parochial and unreliable for modern topics. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 05:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Not an issue, it's usage has been handled with a mind to it's issues. I see you have qualified your usage as well. Infidel is not a modern topic but a historically developing one. I have referred to other sources to corroborate the traditional view and provide the bridge from the parochial viewpoint to the modern ones. Further updates or corrections are welcome where error is found. The issue has been Jayg insistence on a blanket censorship of it's material.--Tigeroo (talk) 08:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] There is no consensus

While I don't oppose Jayjg's edits (nor do I oppose Tigeroo's), its not appropriate for either to claim that there is consensus, as at this point I don't see any. Just saying for clarification.Bless sins (talk) 04:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If you read the discussion above, the only person supporting Tigeroo's argument is Tigeroo. And Wikipedia has a consensus that modern encyclopedias are a more reliable source that the 1910 Catholic encyclopedia. Jayjg (talk) 04:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
If you notice Tigeroo's version, he/she uses modern sources as well as the 1910 Catholic encyclopedia. He/she uses "Russell B. Shaw, Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Our Sunday Visitor's Catholic Encyclopedia, Our Sunday Visitor Publishing, 1998, ISBN 0879736690 pg. 535", "Questions about Ahl-e Kitab by the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani" which are all modern. These modern sources, however, are omitted in your version. I also note that almost all of the sources in your version are there in Tigeroo's version.Bless sins (talk) 04:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The only Encyclopedias I see cited are by me, both modern and older versions. They however are inherently more useful and informative than mere dictionaries, in either form. I see no one voicing any dissatisfaction with the Cat Enc apart from you, one person does not a consensus make, so please desist from make such false claims.--Tigeroo (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
It's a 100 year old unreliable source, per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_8#Newadvent.org. Jayjg (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Clarification: its unreliable for everything except the Church's views 100 years ago (where it should be attributed).Bless sins (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The thread clearly indicates that is not RS for non-catholic views but entirely RS for the historical Catholic position. If there is an error or bias, raise them separately so we can address those in particular. Avoid the fallacy of presentism, the term has over five decades of history in theological discourse from which it has migrated into current usage. Please read works such as Popes, Lawyers, and Infidels. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 1979, there is extensive literature on just how important the legal implications (in canon law) of the employment of the term has been in politics of such histories such as those related to the Colonization of the Americas such as the implications of its usage in numerous Inter caetera and Papal bulls. --Tigeroo (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
This is not an article about how the Catholic church interpreted the word "infidel" 100 years ago. Material from reliable sources can be added to the Christian section, but clearly this article will be describing what modern, reliable sources say is relevant to the topic. Jayjg (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
This article should do both: describe the Catholic church's views 100 years ago, and the modern views of Catholicism and other religious traditions. This article is only 4-5,000 bytes (Jayjg version; 6-7,000 bytes, Tigeroo's version) so I see lots of room for expansion. We should use all the sources we can get (including the 1910 Catholic encyclopedia) but be very careful on attribution. Tigeroo I noticed that you mostly attributed the information encyclopedia to the Church (good job on that) but you didn't say that these views were held in 1910. Also remember that the 1910 Catholic encyclopedia can't be used a source on facts, only on views.Bless sins (talk) 23:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, the only way it can encompass all views is if the starts by relying on broad, modern, reliable sources, rather than narrow, parochial, 100 year old unreliable ones. Jayjg (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
This is WP:NOT a dictionary, which hardly qualifies as broad, modern reliable source either. I suggest either you make that effort or let other editors make theirs. Your continual blanking hinders integrating and editing the article into a better one.--Tigeroo (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
This is not a 100 year old Catholic encyclopedia; I suggest you stick to modern, reliable sources. Your continual blanking hinders integrating and editing the article into a better one. Jayjg (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Laugh, blanking?? This [diff] and the 2000 byte loss of information resulting from your edit speak for themselves. Please make valid arguments if you want to be taken seriously. See Wikipedia:Using Catholic Encyclopedia material, the WP:RS noticeboard [[16]], the Administrator noticeboard [[17]] as well pages such as discussions on articles such as Catholicism and Freemasonry, Christianity and Freemasonry, Anti-Masonry, Knight Kadosh and a multitude of others. You need to base your objection on valid wikipedia policies and guidelines and not a personally held opinion for it to hold any weight.--Tigeroo (talk) 04:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
You keep trying to write this from a purely Catholic perspective, and keep relying on that 100 year old unreliable source. The article will conform to the modern, unexpurgated meaning of the term, which is applicable to both Islam and Christianity. Jayjg (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
You still have still failed to establish it as non-RS on a valid policy or guideline based argument beyond the one exhibiting a personal Chronological snobbery. I have demonstrated plenty of support for it being RS on wikipedia and the Modern English term is still discussed there as it the current form. Also note that a modern catholic encylopedia is also referenced and the term has been modified according to "a traditional" term per source. I also intend to incorporate a rather large section from other modern sources that discuss the legal implications of the terms in the colonization of the Americas etc. so even your cause for concern that it will turn into a mere mirror of an out dated encyclopedia will be assuaged.--Tigeroo (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't need to establish that ancient, parochial source is unreliable, since Wikipedia:Using Catholic Encyclopedia material, the WP:RS noticeboard [[18]], and the Administrator noticeboard [[19]] already do so. There are no copyright issues with using the material, just issues with WP:V and WP:NPOV. Feel free to incorporate what you wish, but the modern meaning of the term will lead, not the expurgated and bowdlerised meaning. Jayjg (talk) 01:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Facetiously reprinting the proof against as proof is just as silly as claiming a heavily truncated and blanked version is an unexpurgated form. This debate is pointless, you don't have one and now have probably crossed over from just possibly being disruptive to outright disruptive.--Tigeroo (talk) 10:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Please re-read this response to your request for assistance. You have undoubtedly crossed over from just possibly being disruptive to outright disruptive. Future edits that remove the meaning based on modern, reliable sources, and re-insert expurgated meanings based on 100 year old unreliable ones will be simply rolled back. Jayjg (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
It's one discussion under progress and does not imply either. Use rollback at your discretion but mark them as such and be prepared to defend your usage because I will contest the abuse of admin priveleges in content dispute.--Tigeroo (talk) 07:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Rollback is not an admin tool. Jayjg (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infidel Christian

besides the Catholic centricness of the article, another problem is that one can not be an Infidel and a Christian. (unless infidel means nonmuslim) THe Infidel Christian part seems odd. All it really say is that Infidels can't do the things that make Christians, Christians. after some thought, I am going to delete it. Rds865 (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  1. Catholic centricness has more to do with my exposure of the term. If you have something to add we can incorporate and then re-orient the article accordingly.
  2. A bit confused on the Infidel Christian part of the comment. If you mean the section, then while technically correct practice is not necessarily reflective of the same, the section was left for usage of the word to describe people ranging from Protestants, Baptists, specific presidents (AKA Abraham & Adams) to communists.
  3. On the sacrament section I agree the part was a bit awkward, I've put it back in an altered form, though however the sacraments are, how to put it, a divine grace not to be had by infidels. I'll leave it out until I can make it's meaning more coherent like the item about marriage.--Tigeroo (talk) 10:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
"Catholic centricness" actually has to do with the deliberate use of unreliable sources for the purpose of whitewashing and expurgation. However, the article will rely on modern, comprehensive sources for the definition, per WP:V and WP:NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you should read and look at the sources cited again. They have moved significantly but your tired arguments have not. Employing the I did not hear/see tactic doesn't make your position anymore valid, just makes your arguments a lot more hollow.--Tigeroo (talk) 07:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
You're still leading with the 1910 Catholic encyclopedia. It is your tired abuse of ancient unreliable sources that hasn't changed. We're sticking with modern reliable ones for an understanding of the term. Jayjg (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Thread highjack ignored, this has been addressed elsewhere and doesn't need to be in every thread.--Tigeroo (talk) 04:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Then don't bring it up in every thread. Jayjg (talk) 04:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Huh?? The problem with your arguments are that they are either intentionally facetious or based in an alternate reality.--Tigeroo (talk) 08:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Your strange attempt to tie a primarily Catholic meaning around this term is contradicted by reliable dictionary definitions. Please stop. - Merzbow (talk) 06:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The dictionary is reliable source for the wikitionary, beyond that they must be used with care because of their to their narrow current language usage focus. See the RFC on the page that points against such a focus for the article. It is also an ecclesiastical term with a predominantly historical usage in Christian discourses. Obviously this is the kind of information that is beyond the scope of a dictionary to cover, but not of wikipedia. The article can still use significant expansion on it's usage by non-Catholics, social impacts, in reformation/ renaissance era philosophical debates etc. and is far from complete and I am willing to amend/ correct the Catholic centricness as the article fills up.--Tigeroo (talk) 05:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Which is why we need to use broad dictionary definitions, rather than narrow ecclesiastical uses. In particular, we need to avoid sources that only describe the word from a Christian POV - with the obvious intent, as has been the case all along, of avoiding the common Muslim meaning - and instead need a broad perspective. Also, we don't need to get into detailed apologetics about the use of the term "kafir", from various dubious sources and websites, particularly in the lead. And finally, we shouldn't have outright falsehoods in the article - for example that it literally means "one who denies the blessings of God". What it literally means is "covering", from the root K-F-R "to cover". Jayjg (talk) 01:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
English language dictionaries, while useful, are not a source for forming any broad based, historical representations or narratives. They are by nature presentist and narrowly focused, which is why they belong in the wikitionary. This is about the concept Infidel, not the word, please revisit Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary to see the detailed reasons why dictionary definitions while useful are not necessarily a good idea. Like I have mentioned above the significance of the term Infidel is very relevant to it's association with theology and theological debates, rather than the English language (where again it is just referencing a theological definition or attitude, just in the discourse of the laity). It also had a part as a label in philosophical debates, but again they revolved around attitudes towards traditional (christian) society and the so called freethinkers. There is no apologetic involved about the Islamic term. It is what it is, a translation of an Islamic term, there is no word "Infidel" in Islamic theology or even Arabic, just kafir which can be translated as Infidel, unbeliever etc. depending on the tone. Your reliance on an English language dictionary as a source of information on Islamic terms is probably what is getting you muddled, and that is because it migrated into common parlance from the theological perspective English speakers were most familiar with, Christian theology. Just remember a dictionary will only give you what the word means to present day English language speakers. The technical definition of kafir in Islam is however slightly different from both the Christian theology version and English language word that it is used as a translation of. That is significant and actually addressed rather simply without extraneous elaborations. The part that could be considered apologetic is however also coupled in a section of what could be called Christian theology apologetics for the term. This could be moved elsewhere if required and is not a biggie.--Tigeroo (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, narrow Christian sources are even moreso "narrow focused" and "not a source for forming any broad based, historical representations or narrative". Your edits to this article for the past year have been solely for the purpose of restricting the term to a Christian definition, and removing any Muslim connotation. That will not stand. Think of ways to work with the current version, which uses broad, non-parochial sources. Any edits made for the purpose of downplaying the Muslim meaning of infidel will not be successful. Jayjg (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Huh?? I have made every effort to widen the scope of the article from the narrow confines of a Catholic sense. Now the word is historically linked with Christian theology and, for the major part, in the English language historically as a term of reference by Christians for others is just an inescapable fact ([see also a dictionary that specifically restricts the definition to Christianity or as a general term to applicable as a term of reference by believers of any religion to non-believers]). I have consistently never removed anything regarding the fact that it is also used in the English language in reference to Islam, rather it's been you who have been consistently removing material. When dealing with parochial terms unfortunately parochial sources are the reliable sources. Please respect the comments from the RfC and comply with wikipedia guidelines, the dictionary term belongs in the sister-project wikipedia.--Tigeroo (talk) 04:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Source that directly equate "goy" and "gentile" with infidel.

As we all know, the terms "goy" and "gentile" do not mean infidel. However, I'm certainly open to Tigeroo quoting some reliable sources that say they do mean the same thing. Tigeroo, please provide those sources here, including the exact sentences that state they are equivalent. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 01:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Earlier Tigeroo found the following sources. In my opinion these sources are enough to justify inclusion in the "See also" section (but I can't say if they justify inclusion in the article).
  • George Weckman, "The Language of the Study of Religion: A Handbook", 2001 pg. 64-65)
  • Culture-on-demand: Communication in a Crisis World (pg 175): "Those "others" - goyim, pagan, infidel - appear prominently in the rhetoric of all three monotheistic faiths as impure, threathening .."
  • Judaism and Islam in Practice: A Sourcebook (pg 147) "..'Not Israel' (the Gentiles undifferentiated) then corresponds to Infidel..."
The last source is actually quite clear when it says "corresponds to Infidel".Bless sins (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Quotes are going to need to be provided to justify this "additional proof". Yahel Guhan 00:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Huh? I already have provided the quotes above. Bless sins (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Provide the full quotations for each, please. The second is not enough to indicate they are equivalent, or worthy of a "See also". Jayjg (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
It speaks for itself quite clearly.--Tigeroo (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
It's insufficient to justify the "See also". Jayjg (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Have I not provided the quotes for the second and the third? If yes, I don't understand what you want.Bless sins (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
It's quite clear, nor does the equation appear strange.--Salikk (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Since you seem to like dictionary definitions so much, they are also considered synonyms for infidel [20] and [21]--Tigeroo (talk) 04:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think that there may be enough sources to mention the terms in the article.Bless sins (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable sources only please

Bless sins, please stop inserting material from unreliable website, including Douglas Harpers "Online etymology dictionary". Harper is a historian, not a linguist, and I don't believe even has a doctorate. As for your material from islamonline.net, it doesn't say what you are attributing to it. Jayjg (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The only material I've added in the last little while is from the Online Etymology dictionary. As far as I know, you yourself have used that as a source ([22]).
Secondly you claim that because Harper is a historian and not a linguist, he's unreliable. Since when are historians unreliable sources on the history of stuff (in this case a term)?Bless sins (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, "Liturgical Press" is not a reliable source, it's a Church organ. From their website:

"Liturgical Press began publishing for the Church in 1926. Since then, 81 gratifying years have passed, and our dedicated staff continues to sustain our original mission of proclaiming the Good News of Jesus Christ."

Major dictionaries are clearly the way to go here. - Merzbow (talk) 04:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This entry is not meant to be a dictionary item, and there should be no blanket ban on other resources. (Though, this does not exclude dictionaries from being legitimate sources.)Bless sins (talk) 04:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Tigeroo's version was written primarily sourced off of the Liturgical Press book. Even assuming that's a reliable source for anything other than the Catholic Church's own opinion, it's a far less reliable source than major dictionaries. - Merzbow (talk) 05:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The dictionary is only reliable for the English language word in usage at the time of it's printing. It is by no means an authority or even comprehensive in its treatment of concepts, which is why we have the sister project, the wikitionary (WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary}. It is a verifiable source and appears to have a favorable peer-review that says it's coverage is not limited to a Catholic centric (PS: Having a POV does not make a source non RS either).--Tigeroo (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a Catholic printing press with the specific declared mission of "proclaiming the Good News of Jesus Christ". The authors are Catholic theologians. I'm not saying it can't be used, but this article is not about the Catholic theological concept of "infidel", it's about the English word. - Merzbow (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Umm have you read WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and the RfC, if you want I can take the Infidel (concept) to another page and then run an AfD on Infidel (the dictionary word). They all actually say it cannot be just about the word because we have the wikitionary for such a thing, which would by nature be short. Plus where do you think the word or it's come from? Infidel is defined in "religious" terms. Anyway I have pulled in other dictionary references, which actually again specifically signal Christian usage of the term. Maybe they are onto to something too after all. Once again note, the cited source is not a Catholic Centric discussion but more of well rounded discussion of the term. While the authors may be catholic theoligans the book is actualy commented on for it's looking beyond that view. I have supported such use of that with more "mainstream" sources as well as a second citation.--Tigeroo (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
In fact, the discussion in the RfC above seems to have gone against your attempt to have this article be about Catholic theology, instead of the primary meanings of the word. - Merzbow (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
See Talk:Infidel#Request_for_Comment:_Infidel_Dictionary_Terms and seeWikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary. The policy is quite clear, the article in Wikipedia cannot be about the word. I see the article as branching into the historical religious, social and philosophical impact of the term vs. the word. Dictionaries such as Webster and Oxford highlight the Christian connection for the word, why are you then surprised when the discussion of the term invariably has shades of this religion. If you know of any other non-dictionary relevance of the article, please add it and we can re-evaluate how on target the article intro is in such light. So far I have seen none, except for persistent blanking of material that does not fit an "English-language dictionary". These actions are actually against cited policy. Have you even read the intro or seen the see also's that you have blindly reverted? They are synonyms of associated concepts and references for the intro material available in the Webster and Oxford dictionary, how does that fit with the unhelpful not a Catholic wiki comment on the revert?--Tigeroo (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
That's fine, and that's what it does. But it certainly won't be focusing only on the Catholic meaning of the term. Jayjg (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Violating policy is not fine. Policy is quite clear on this score, it certainly cannot be focused only on the the dictionary term. The article is doing what it should be doing, naturally evolving to focus on whatever matter is relevant to the article. The intro is already not a Catholic centric view, its your turn bring to something to article. If you feel something is missing or lacking add to it not blank.--Tigeroo (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The article itself must represent the common and comprehensive meaning of the term, not just the Catholic one. Please stop suppressing all non-Catholic meanings. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 02:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Please read the lead, it does exactly that and not talk about the Catholic meaning. Be reminded, WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary is there because the dictionary is not a source for a comprehensive meaning. If something is missing add it, removing information in noway creates a comprehensive article, just stunted one.--Tigeroo (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and it's not whitewashed either. Jayjg (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
You will have to explain what is being whitewashed. So far I just see you attempting to do so as demonstrated by this [23] inspite of the sourced and verified sources provided in the preceding thread.--Tigeroo (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed; Tigeroo, you have no consensus for your rewrite, please stop trying to force it. - Merzbow (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The consensus on the RfC on this page has been against the Wikipedia as a dictionary term and is enshrined in policy so I assume this is not what you are referring to and which is basically Jayg's Argumentum ad nauseam (Even that insufficient argument does not hold any water anymore as even English language dictionary entries have been provided to support the current version of the lead). If there is another issue in particular that you are referring to, than I have been willing to work with it as can be evidenced from the fact that the article has moved a long way from the predominantly Catholic Encyclopedia information version. Once again consider yourself challenged to substantiate your positions.--Tigeroo (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Please stop mis-stating and mis-representing the consensus on this page. Also, it's rather amusing that you would allege that the "consensus" was "against the Wikipedia as a dictionary term", and then proceed to insert your own preferred dictionary usage. In any event, there is no consensus for your repeating your Argumentum ad nauseam; work on the Talk: page, rather than edit-warring your non-consensus version in. Jayjg (talk) 11:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
And what is may this Argumentum ad nauseam of mine be??? Inspite of asking, I still don't see any outstanding issue having been identified for me to work with here on the Talk:page. Just more unhelpful and childish parroting, non-specific repetitions of discredited or no longer applicable positions, vague innuendos and disruptive reversions. Nothing that lends itself to dialog. Instead of trying to appear all sanctimonious, consider this question when you next "work on the Talk: page": Just what is it achieving and how did your last post contribute towards advancing any possible resolution?--Tigeroo (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

A couple of things:

  • Jayjg please don't mark you major edits as minor. I'll assume it was an honest mistake.[24]
  • I'm restoring this edit as no one seems to have further responded to my comments on 20:31, 10 May 2008, and it seems to have gotten lost in the reversions.Bless sins (talk) 05:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The Etymology Online website is a personal website of a non-linguist. It is not a reliable source. Please don't use it again. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Lead - Explanation to provide a basis for constructive discussion

Para 1: Infidel (literally "one without faith") is a general term used for unbelievers. Introduces the term in a manner that fits "all alternative definitions of the word", theological and English language usage. The word infidel, is an archaic term designating a person who rejects some or all of the essential doctrines of one's own religion or rejects the existence of God - specifically a Muslim to a Christian, a Christian to a Muslim and a Gentile to a Jew. Elaborates the first sentence, showing the datedness of the term and highlighting specific common usages. First paragraph ends providing a broad-overview and leading into the next paragraph.

Para 2: In particular, the term has been used by Christians to describe non-Christians or those perceived as enemies of Christianity, including monotheistic Muslims, and in such usage is distinguishable from heathen or pagan. Start with it's usage in terms of Christians. Rationale: 1) The term originates from and describes a Christian-centric concept 2)All dictionaries include, even give non-Christian as a definition, (this also clarifies the difference in usage of the term from other terms with this meaning, heathen and pagan) it while some do not even mention the other two religious systems leading into this para. This covers common usage of the term which is placed before the theological.

In traditional Christian usage, it is an ecclesiastical term referring to one who does not believe in the divinity of Jesus but also knowingly holds beliefs that contradict Catholic dogma, or one who has not been baptized (not faithful). In its broadest sense, it means anyone who has not embraced the Christian faith (the faithful) Describes the theological pinnings of the term and helps orient the reader to the much of the historical discourses involving the term that will be involved because of the historicity and origin of the term.

Missing information of possible inclusion here: As applied historically by Christians to Jews.

When used in an Islamic sense it serves as a translation of the Arabic word kafir (literally the one who "covers", in the sense of hiding) - referring to those who do not believe in the one god - which includes atheists and polytheists but not Christians, Jews and Zorastrians who are known instead as the "People of the Book (Ahl-e-kitab}" Describes the next significant common use association of the term:Islam and the theological difference.

In English usage, especially in fiction and poetic usage, Infidel is often presented as a Muslim descriptor referring to Christians Acknowledges that while there exists a different definition for the terms, in the English language it is applied and reference to Islam with the same meaning as the Christian conception.

Ignored: Gentile - Not significant enough to be rementioned.

Missing Paragraph 4: Historical and social aspects of the concept, influence on political, philosophical and legal issues. (To be added when the article has matured with relevant content or whenever someone sources it.)

Explain specific objections, suggest remedies and lets move focused discussion towards resolving issues.--Tigeroo (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tigeroo. I've produced a compromise version, based on both the consensus version and your own. Unfortunately, your version misrepresented sources: for example, it presented
  • "From the Muhammadean point of view, especially as presented in English fiction and poetry, infidel often means a Christian"
as
  • "In English usage, especially in fiction and poetic usage, Infidel is often presented as a Muslim descriptor referring to Christians".
The source was talking about the term from the Muslim point of view, and you tried to turn it into a discussion of how English language speakers "presented" Muslims. Please don't do that again. Also, the sources are nearly unanimous in indicating that this term is mostly relevant in Islam and Christianity; for some reason you keep trying to find something, anything really, that will implicate Judaism too, though the term is not actually used in Judaism. Please avoid WP:UNDUE in the future. Now, since we're starting from this compromise version, please constructively propose any changes here on the Talk: page, rather than continually revert-warring in your personal version. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately the proposed version both contravenes wikipedia (not a dictionary) policy and focuses on a narrow interpretation instead of a more inclusive version. Secondly it does not propose where the original version fails, you will have to take the time to be as descriptive with your listing and explanations as I have been so I can even begin to understand how what propose can be seen as a compromise, currently I just see a reversion. Content issues raised so far:

1)As for the sentence that is being read as a misrepresentation shows me no difference (i.e. I do not see the meaning you seem to imply me as misrepresenting) in meaning or intent in the version I proposed vs. your change so it can stay. 2)The next item about Judaism is actually as per a source which specifically makes mentions all three of these religions, another source mentions only Christianity and another mentions only Christianity and Islam. Clearly a source does not agree that it has no association with Judaism (it gives an example:Gentile), what they all do show is it that the term is primarily a term with Christian connotations, associated with Islam in English and Judaism. I agree that the Judaic association is not strong as that of Christianity or Islam and undue has been addressed by not making anymore than passing mention, unlike the discussions on the other two faiths. These line item discussions are more fruitful in understanding positions and taking things toward a compromise. Also refrain from calling versions consensus when it is clearly just your version.--Tigeroo (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, sources for Judaism's relation have been provided at Talk:Infidel#Source_that_directly_equate_.22goy.22_and_.22gentile.22_with_infidel.. I disagree that wikipedia should give exclusive attention to the above two religions. We should report on whatever religion sources report on.Bless sins (talk) 03:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The sources predominantly relate the term to Islam and Christianity. WP:UNDUE. Jayjg (talk) 03:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Each of them refers to Judaism. Are you saying that all have them make no reference to Judaism?Bless sins (talk) 03:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Tigeroo managed to google up a couple of peripheral references that use "Judaism" and "infidel" on the same page, and one that even uses the term "goyim". As I said, WP:UNDUE. And, as always, please review begging the question. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Whether the references were "google[d]" up or yahooed up doesn't really matter. What matters is that they are reliable sources. If you disagree with that, then state your objections clearly.
WP:UNDUE doesn't apply since Judaism is a significant religion whose views are often presented alongside those of Islam and Christianity.
Finally, I'll be more than happy to review a wiki policy (but please also quote it though), but will not necessarily review articles on wikipedia.Bless sins (talk) 03:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
No violation of UNDUE is seen here because it has not over focused it's attention on it. UNDUE is not the same as blanking which has resulted in the removal this information inspite of an existing association (see the reliable sources cited.)--Tigeroo (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)