Talk:Religious fanaticism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 April, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 March 2008. The result of the discussion was Keep.

First, I told Loom91 on the AFD page that Catholics weren't the only religious fanatics and that there was no direct war between the Middle East and the West. Second, Loom91 reverted everyone else's changes, even keeping his spelling errors. Third, Loom91 took out many of the examples, even though they're obviously relevant to the subject, show the history of the subject, and broaden the definition of the concept. Further much of what he wrote is just a statement of what is obvious. Wikipedia is here to teach people things they don't already know. I suppose that I can keep the last paragraph, though, as I haven't heard that one before.--Primetime 18:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Stop the revert war 2 Haredi Jews stoning people on Shabbat 3 Religious fanaticism and utilitarianism 4 Not a good article 5 Avoiding deletion 6 Atheism 7 Delete this article immediately!

[edit] Stop the revert war

Please evryone, WP:NPOV and good judgment demands that an article be written from a neutral point of view, especially in controversial cases like this one. We can not accuse specific religious groups of being fanatics or imply any such accusation. Also, WIkipedia states what is obvious very often. A person may not have ever heard the phrase Religious fanaticism (it's not a very common phrase unless you keep up with world news, which many people do not), in which case there is no such thing as obvious for him. Wikipedia must not exclude facts on the basis they are obvious, obvious is subjective. Please stop this revert war and start making constructive edits, you continue to revert this article to its POV state then you are risking being nominated for deletion again. Loom91 05:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Primetime's version is more correct and overall more well written. I disagree with some of what Loom91 is trying to say, especially "In recent times there has been a cultural and sometimes direct war between western Christianity-dominated countries and Middle-East Islam dominated countries." I understand what you're trying to say here, but that doesn't seem like the way to say it. Some other points you make such as the religious mainstream opposing fanaticism sound great but sound like Original Research. Where are your sources?

I think that the specific examples that Primetime gives, however, could possibly be taken offensively and as such I think the article should not describe the groups as fanatics, but rather say that a specific group may consider them fanatic.. I'm getting this precedent from the Islamism article. ("Some Muslims find it troublesome that a word derived from "Islam" is applied to organizations they consider radical and extreme.")

But I'm not vain enough to think that my opinion is the only one that matters. Until a reasonable consensus is established, no more reverts should be made. Keppa 23:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

All right, I've attempted to rewrite the offending section and provide some references, though interwiki. Though this version is obviously open to dispute, please do not reinstate the previous inflammatory version accusing specific groups of being fanatics. We absolutely can not do that. Don't revert to that version, whatever you do. I also notice that while Primetime continues to revert edits, he has not seen fit to to take part in this discussion on the talk page. As for the last sentence on religious mainstreams not approving of fundamentalist tendencies, though that statement is currently unsourced I think all will agree it to be mostly truthful. After we have agreed that it is right, we can jointly try to seek out references. Loom91 07:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I don't think that the content about the conflict between the Middle East and the United States is applicable here, at least in its current form; for example, what clear connection (and I mean connection established within the article) does the Iraq war have with religious fanaticism? Claiming that the September 11 attacks were carried out by religious extremists would give it more relevance here. I'm abstaining from touching the article as I have little knowledge about this subject. Keppa 05:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. I also think much of the version proposed by Loom does not teach anyone anything, so it's almost useless without actual examples. However, in order to stop the edit warring, I will insert some non-controversial portions of that edition. I will also add qualifications to the examples, letting the reader know that the beliefs are not universal. Now the article is NPOV, I believe.--Primetime 05:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Haredi Jews stoning people on Shabbat

There have been some edits back and forth involving this sentence, and I went ahead and took it out altogether. My reasoning is, yes, it's true, it's possible to get hit with stones if driving in certain parts of Jerusalem during Shabbat, but it's not the work Relgious fanatics, rather the work of teenage orthodox hooligans. Nobody seriously considers that an emanation of religious extremism such as a 9/11 style suicide attack. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religious fanaticism and utilitarianism

I just conducted a major rewrite on this section. It was very poorly written and very loose with facts. It is now reasonably consistent with most contemporary ideas about utilitarianism, at any rate.

"Alternatively, religious belief could help an individual to find their place in society or give to the whole society a philosophical ethos, as religious belief can sometimes help persons find meaning in their lives." - this sentence still worries me a little, as finding meaning does not necessarily lead to an increase in utility. However, I qualified it with the sentence which follows it, so I think it should hold.

On another note, the original text tried to argue that according to utilitarianism, the fanaticism of a religious believer is continuous with how beneficial or detrimental their actions are to utility. I haven't ever heard this argued, and the source wasn't cited. Judging by the level of care put into the previous write-up, it is quite possible that the author pulled this out of their ass. However, I haven't any evidence to the contrary, so I left it in. Good luck with your revert war! Stringman5 06:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not a good article

The article starts out with something like a definition: "Within the spectrum of adherence to a particular belief system, religious fanaticism is the most extreme form of religious fundamentalism."

Somebody has then inserted an apologetic and defensive section called the "Overview": "When adherents to a religion get involved in a pattern of violently and potentially deadly opposition to anyone they do not agree with, they are sometimes branded as Religious fanatics by their detractors, although they may object that their actions are completely sound." I'm not sure why this qualifies as an "overview". It seems to be designed to dilute the position of the opening paragraph.

Then comes a section called the "Definition", which says: "Determining who are religious fanatics is naturally a very controversial issue. It is notable that followers of a religion, and not the religion itself are the target of accusations of religious fanaticism. The whole issue is controversial due to the very nature of the allegation. Frequently the norms of the society are greatly diluted versions from those of the religion in the area. Therefore an individual who is obedient to his religion is often seen as a fanatic."

This is even more apologetic! The only saving grace is a brief statement tacked on at the end (with a "citation needed" note) that "Of course it is also possible that the individual is going beyond the norms of the religion."

Then there is a section on "Religious fanaticism and utilitarianism", the longest section in the whole article, followed by a "List of accused", "See also", and "References" (one reference).

The article hardly seems encyclopaedic and is dominated by protestations that religious fanatics are not really religious fanatics, perhaps inserted by people who feel themselves vulnerable to the charge.

Really, can't we do better than this?

Bathrobe 07:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

To put it bluntly: This is not a serious article, it is simply gibberish without any sources and references. The article should be deleted. Someone translated the text into German today and it was listed for deletion quite fast. --EvaK (talk) 03:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Everything involving religion is gibberish without any sources and references. --Willeywhale (talk) 19:06, 24 March January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it may be gibberish but it often has plenty of sources and references. BananaFiend (talk) 12:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that this should be deleted as is, but it does have potential - I think that the chances of it ending up non-POV is miniscule due to strong feelings on either side BananaFiend (talk) 12:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Avoiding deletion

This page has been nominated for deletion, and at least one user feels it can be saved, I'll help out in any way I can, here are the problems I see with it:

• As pointed out by another user (more eloquent than me), "fanatic" is by often considered a pejorative term, characterised by excessive and unquestioning enthusiasm. In that case, even the title of this page could be inflammatory.
• This page should deal only with excessive enthusiasm carried out by people who believe fully in a religion in the cause of the religion.
• It will be difficult to balance the religions, with many people feeling some religions are overrepresented.
• Who will define "excessive"? For a born-again-christian knowing that unless they convert you, you will burn forever in hell, a high degree of enthusiasm for the cause will seem the least they can do.

BananaFiend (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

A web search has so far mostly been not that useful. I did get one thing that might be useful as a source, but it's difficult to work through (I've only read half of it so far). Google Scholar gets a ton of hits, but I can't fully access them; I'll be able to search a better database early next week. But at the very least I'm gonna' try to get rid of that whole ton of POV stuff right now.

I'm not sure that we really want all that much detail on the various religions themselves here. Given how much there is for each (from what I've seen on my Gsearches so far), they might all need their own articles (assuming sourcing isn't an issue). --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I've gone and commented out the section on utilitarianism. It really reads like undue coverage of something not that important. Combined with the lack of refs therein, and... Not good. Some of the content itself might be useful, but we don't need it showing up in the article without sources at the very least. I'll have a password to search the database I mentioned above later today, so we'll see what I can turn up. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

When does the time-limit on the afd run out? I've moved a citation needed to cover the entire paragraph relating to societal norms, it's a paragraph that reasons without citation, so looks very like original research to me, I might delete it if there are no more comments. BananaFiend (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's supposed to close in the next day or two. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Atheism

On another note, defining atheism as a religion, or stating that it could be defined under religion and religious is highly controversial (as pointed out by the editor in the article - it's a matter of some debate). To add it to this article is stretching NPOV. If it's a notable incident, by all means put it in wikipedia - or link to another page that has that information (I suspect the persecution of religious people in Russia is described somewhere).

Perhaps I should have opened a discussion before undoing as I did. In that case, consider it opened, if there is no response, I will remove it and link to a page containing the relevant information under a heading "atheistic fanaticism"

BananaFiend (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

True, it is controversial. A better separation would be "Theistic Fanatacism" and "Atheistic Fanaticism". Atheism is a broad term encompassing many types of nontheism, just as religion covers many different types of, well religions. Buddhism is considered a religion that does not facilitate the belief in a god or supernatural, but it is described as a religion. Therefore a Buddhist can be an atheist, but also be religious. Because of this, religious fanaticism carried out by atheists can exist.

A law stating there shall be no religion is still a law on religion, and thus a religious law. This does not make a state religious, however. What would make it religious would be a distinction against all other religions. Since the actions of the Soviet Union were carried out ritualistically upon a group of comrades where the only distinction was their embracing of religion, the acts themselves became religious in nature. The acts are similarly defined as fanatic in religious states. However, much of this classification is based upon the broad definitions of the words religious and religion themselves. In any case, the two are definitely related if they are not the same.

(75.162.231.88 (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC))

interesting stuff! "thus a religious law" is a dangerous statement in this context, the law is not religious, it deals with religion. A law on animals is not animalistic. The acts are not religious in nature, they simply deal with religion. If they were ritualistic (I don't know enough about them) then they were ritualistic, if they were carried out by atheists (not in the sense of buddhism, which the russian atheism wasn't) then they were not religious, but political, racial, discriminatory or downright evil, but not religious. If they were picking on homosexuals, these were not homosexual acts.

BTW thanks for the comments on buddhism, I have never thought of it like that before, so therefore religious acts can be carried out by atheists. However, the example was atheists in the sense of rejecting the supernatural at all. BananaFiend (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've removed the atheism section - this should be reformatted and put in a better section. BananaFiend (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Delete this article immediately!

We are not fanatics! We just love the savior!Jesus is the one true Savior (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC) -Not to mention it being unencyclopedic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesus is the one true Savior (talk • contribs) 00:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• It's a reasonable article, and it does cover all flavours of fanaticism. Plus, it was nominated for deletion two months ago, and consensus was to keep it. I doubt much has changed since then. —C.Fred (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)