Talk:Religious discrimination against Asatru

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Neopaganism, a WikiProject dedicated to expanding, organizing, verifying, and NPOVing articles related to neopagan religions. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? 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.
 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.


previous discussion: Talk:Discrimination against Asatruers in United States prisons.

[edit] notability?

this article is in fact discussing the gradual recognition of neopagan groups over the past decade: the title is a transparent attempt at pushing some sort of 'poor us' agenda, when the same material could figure under the header "history of the official recognition of neopaganism". Nothing here isn't already treated in greater context at Religious discrimination against Neopagans. There simply is not enough material for this article, no matter how much you would like to editorialize about tales of "persecution". dab (๐’ณ) 08:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand that is your position, but others disagree. See for instance Talk:Discrimination against Asatruers in United States prisons#WP:3O. // Liftarn
do not remove tags. No evidence is presented that this topic is at all notable. Present an academic publication studying religious discrimination specifically against Asatru and I'll be happy to keep this article. Otherwise, you'll have to agree you have no case. I can see a comment arguing against deletion, and I agree. The material here shouldn't be deleted, it should be discussed under a broader title. You are not going to create a Religious discrimination against Peter N. Georgacarakos article either, are you? dab (๐’ณ) 09:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that you don't like it is not a valid argument. And your "do not remove tags" is soemwhat ironic given your recent edit[1]. // Liftarn
I said nothing about not liking it. I was asking for a WP:RS establishing notability. If you can show that, we'll keep it regardless of my dislike. If you cannot, we'll merge it regardless of your agenda. This was our deal. I gave you time to establish notability. You didn't. So now I'm calling for a merger. That's really all there is to this. dab (๐’ณ) 09:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, the deal was to let an independent third party look into it and Talk:Discrimination against Asatruers in United States prisons#WP:3O looks like it. Now you try to change it because your plan backfired. // Liftarn

What "backfired"? Scottjar (talk ยท contribs) called for a discussion on merging, which is what we agreed should be the next step too. WP:RS isn't optional, Liftarn. Frankly I find arguing with you isn't time well spent. Let's stick to the rules and ask for third opinions regarding the merger. dab (๐’ณ) 09:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately, there are hardly any editors aware of this article outside of myself and the two participants in the 3O, so bringing it to AFD would make some sense to obtain some unbiased opinions on whether or not the article warrants its own space, or whether or not it should be merged into an overall topic, or whether it should exist at all. It's hard to reach a consensus within this talk space since not many other parties are actively editing this article that don't have some COI. โ€”  Scottjar  โ†’ Talk 17:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
    • you have a point. I feel bad about submitting an article to afd that I do not in fact want deleted, but it appears WP:RFC is dead... dab (๐’ณ) 17:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Here's a fourth opinion, since it wasn't removed from 3O yet. Truth is, this whole article does read a lot like somebody's essay and the sources are so varied and non-uniform that it feels a bit like synthesis. I would consider that this page is notable if one of the sources actually was an academic discussion on religious discrimination against Asatru. However, none seem to be. My suggestion is take this to WP:AFD, and see what community consensus has to say. I know you all already thought of that but it seems the only option. Good luck! Bulldog123 05:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comments: merge?

merge into religious discrimination against Neopagans?

strawpoll regarding the notability of this article's topic sufficient for a dedicated article.

relevant guideline: Wikipedia:Notability.

Liftarn and dab are recused.

merge into Religious discrimination against Neopagans

  • Merge I debated this one, but I don't see much value in a separate article on this subject. The existence of this article, IMHO, actually decreases the credibility of the Religious discrimination against Neopagans. It is poorly written, but my main criticism is that this article relies almost entirely upon anecdotal evidence. Isolated incidents of religious bigots does not make it a trend or an issue.Balloonman 23:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

keep separate

Comment

According to the language of the poll, this strawpoll language is about whether the article is notable enough for it's own article, not about whether or not the article should be merged. So, I'm not voting on whether or not it should be merged -- that's a separate question for a separate poll. I'll vote on the question that was put: is the subject notable. --Yksin 20:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Correcting myself so nobody else has to restrain themselves from pointing out how dumb I just was... -- geez, how blind can I be? Yes it does ask about merging or not. Nonetheless, I'm not going to vote on the merge, just on the notability question. --Yksin 20:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Subject is notable enough for a dedicated article.

  • Subject is notable. I'm not convinced by the arguments that this article isn't notable because of the lack of academic articles on the topic. WP:N states: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." -- it says nothing about requiring that independent, reliable, significant coverage needing to come from an academic source. The fact that Cutter v. Wilkinson (544 U.S. 709 (2005)) is a U.S. Supreme Court case in itself establishes this topic as notable (though I don't understand why the article doesn't say this is a Supreme Court case; it should also mention that three other minority religions -- Wicca, Satanism, Church of Christ Christian -- were also joined into this case). Obviously this article could stand for improvement in its structure & style, but that's true of a vast majority of Wikipedia articles. Meantime, this article's subject is sufficiently notable to be its own article, if it's decided to keep it separate rather than to merge. --Yksin 20:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Given the nature of notability, I find a rule of thumb to be useful: when in doubt, assume sufficient notability. Loom91 07:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)