Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islam and anti-Christian persecution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 16:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Islam and anti-Christian persecution

Islam and anti-Christian persecution (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)
  • Delete. As a look at the article makes abundantly clear, it is a laundry-list of mostly unrelated items, and as such violates WP:SYN. Most of the persecution is neither particularly Islamic nor systematically directed against Christians, but rather incidental to generic conflicts. As an example, claiming the "Young Turks" were motivated by Islam is absurd on the face of it - for all their faults, they laid the foundation of Turkey as a secular state! It might well be possible to write an article on this or a similar topic, but the current one serves as an inhibition rather than as a stepping stone. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Mr Schulz there are academics who would disagree (though their opinions are controversial). Mr Arnold J. Toynbee is one such person, who you wholesale just denied that he did and stated that he stated. His article and related articles are currently also being like wise and in a like manner attacked. Also it denies that The Blight of Asia was ever written or read. I added those people to the article and the sourced information both were deleted wholesale and without collaboration. Their positions are not getting voiced in the other articles either. A profile for one such acedemic that I created has also being setup for AFD. There is nothing collaborative about editors denying, obstructing and deleting, what scholars clearly state. Editor acting as if they need to be and have to convinced of what is blatant and clearly inprint. You are being unfair and if you look at how much and what was cut of the article this will establish a pattern of abuse done this same type of way on other wiki articles.

LoveMonkey (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per above, this is a simple POV fork of Persecution of Christians. <eleland/talkedits> 14:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete POV, communally divisive. -Ravichandar 14:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Lordjeff06 (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per all comments above. Eklipse (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Stephan Schulz and Ravichandar -- Salih (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Although there are problems with the article, the topic of persecution of any group because of its religion is encyclopedic, and a snowball delete is something that should be avoided; I hope that the author gets time to consider what we're talking about here. Ironically, what I'm seeing here is a person of one faith condemning believers of another faith because of the actions of some. There was a massacre in 1982 of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon by militiamen who declared themselves to be Christian-- would it be fair to impute this to all of Christianity? Is persecution by a Moslem different than persecution by someone else? Is a Moslem killer necessarily acting under the direction of a Moslem cleric? I think that a list of incidents of persecution would be encyclopedic, but you have to ask yourself whether you believe that you can check your point of view at the door without feeling that you've betrayed your faith. Mandsford (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete A POV article by definition. It's a one sided point making exercise bringing together disparate events that should be seen seperately. For starters, "persecution" is a POV term itself and narrows the possible focus of any such article. Take the Indonesian section as an example - much of the trouble in the last 10 years in some of the eastern parts of the island has been virtual war based along sectarian lines. This article doesn't alude to the wider context of two-sided conflict - if it was to be put in, it would no doubt be argued out as irrelevant to the topic (ie, one sided complaint list). As it currently stands, readers are none-the wiser to the bigger picture in this region. --Merbabu (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete pov fork of persecution of Christians. This article is a recreation of "Persecution by Muslims". Editors need to remember that the article was deleted some time ago (and with consensus). Note: editors may be interested in nominating Persecution by Christians for deletion as well.Bless sins (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Great point Bless sins! The other article also need to be deleted. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The persecution of one religion by another is a widespread phenomenon, and all articles of this sort if written acceptably can be justified here. The solution to unpleasant parts of history that will offend various parties is to write them carefully but not to omit them. NOT CENSORED. DGG (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment You missed my logic. No one is saying it did not happen. But the fact here is that when you create an article titled Persecution by X-religion, that article become a POV fork and anti-X POV-pushing. Persecution of Y-religion by X-religion should be mentioned in Persecution of Y-religion articles. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as per my comment on the talk page several weeks ago. Just like the deleted "Historical persecution by X" series, this one collates a series of unrelated events so as to present them as sequential and intricately linked. This constitutes original research, and, given the POVFORK nature of the article, is unavoidable. Anything that needs to be mentioned can be done in Persecution of Christians. ITAQALLAH 18:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. How about a more NPOV article at Historical conflict between Christianity and Islam (ordered that way for the sake of alphabetics)? An Islam-centric article should be at Historical persecution by Muslims (now a redirect) if there evidence for persecution by Islam. --Oldak Quill 19:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
No, the proposed article will be unencyclopedic as the information are respectivly present in Persecution of Christians and Persecution of Muslims. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename to Historical persecution by Muslims (now redirect) to make more NPOV, and give the article more potential. --Oldak Quill 19:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
That was deleted in the last AfD as per WP:OR, and rightly so. ITAQALLAH 19:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The delete reason ("The result was delete. WP:OR concerns haven't been addressed - the sources listed do not appear to be relevant and new sources have not been presented here.") seems more a determination that the content in the article at the time was original research, not that there is no scope for an article about Historical persecution by Muslims. With a keep:delete ratio of 13:23, I'm sure there's scope for an NPOV, non-OR article at that title. --Oldak Quill 20:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and Rename into something neutral like Muslim debate on persecution and toleration or Historical conflict between Christianity and Islam. The topic is relevant and NPOV issued can be cleaned up.Zara1709 (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The question is of POV fork. The information can be found easily in the article Persecution of Christians. And there are some WP:SYN in the article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The first suggestion isn't related to the current content of the article. The second is extremely vague, presents two religions as monolithic, and presumes that any 'conflict' between Muslims and Christians equates to conflict between Islam and Christianity, which is far too superficial a perspective. How would you respond to the view that presenting a sequence of unrelated incidences of persecution, in a way not done by reliable sources, violates Wikipedia policy on original research? Because that's what I believe it does. ITAQALLAH 19:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
You don't need to tell me about WP:SYN in cases where a "sequence of unrelated incidences of persecution" is presented. After all, I came into my first edit war in WP when I cleaned up Persecution of Germanic Pagans. But whereas there were no cases of persecution of Germanic Pagans by Christians (that little religious warfare by Charlemagne and Olaf II of Norway doesn't really count) there were actually cases of persecution of Christians by Muslims, weren't they? That an article is written in a bad quality alone is not a reason for deletion (unless the quality is really bad, which is not the case here.) I mean, the old Persecution of ancient Greek religion was a lot worse, and it didn't get deleted but was cleaned up. Zara1709 (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not about article quality. It's about whether there are actually sources linking these assumedly unrelated incidents together. There was indeed persecution of Christians by Muslims, and vice versa, and these belong in Persecution of Christians/Persecution of Muslims respectively. Focusing on the victimising group and implying connections between different events on opposing sides of the world - when no such sources exists to verify this - is nothing other than original research. Discussion of the relationship between Islam and Christianity can be done in more general terms over at the aptly named Islam and Christianity. ITAQALLAH 21:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
All the information present in the article are present in Persecution of Christians.

This article is nothing but a POV fork of Persecution of Christians. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Discussed this with Itaqallah before. -Rosywounds (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, unnecessary given main article exists. If sub-articles are to be created, they should be created along geographical lines following the divisions in the main article. Relata refero (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete We had a discussion about this before and the decision was to delete all the articles Persecution by Muslims, Persecution by Christians and Persecution by Jews and keep the "Persecution of" articles. Many of us voted for deletion of those articles but Persecution by Christians left. So, the better move, I suggest is nomination of Persecution by Christians for deletion instead of adding more of the same articles. --Be happy!! (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • It has already been nominated. ITAQALLAH 21:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Oh. I am not sure if people visiting this article would notice that as well. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Looks fine to me. Also, I just don't believe in deletion. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • So you feel that an article which is inherently going to consist of original research due to its topic shouldn't be deleted? ITAQALLAH 14:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Like we have Islam and antisemitism, Christianity and antisemitism, etc. we should also have this article. If sourced, it has the potential to be a good article, though it may need rewriting (and probably could use a better title). We don't need to move it to Historical persecution by Muslims. Persecution by Muslims, maybe.Yahel Guhan 03:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment While there is a significant body of scholarly literature dedicated to antisemitism and its origins, it appears as though the same is not true here. There are very few, if any, scholarly works that actually discuss the relationship between Christians and Islam--not Muslims as people, we already have Persecution of Christians. This article, at its best, would eventually be reduced into an article that simply discusses Devshirme and Dhimmi (with a heavy bias towards an Ottoman or Egyptian context or modern times) and would still require some analytical thinking and speculation in order to "connect the dots." Moreover, all the information that the article would eventually accumulate would be better fit into articles like Dhimmi, Devshirme, and Persecution of Christians. -Rosywounds (talk) 04:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
You can't really compare Islam and antisemitism with this article. Islam and antisemitism is specifically a topic that has been discussed in reliable source publications. The same cannot be said about "Islam and anti-Christian persecution", mainly because "anti-Christian persecution" isn't a developed concept like Antisemitism.
Your argument also lacks fundamental consistency, as on the other AfD currently active you opined delete because it was a "POV fork" (why isn't this article a POV fork?) and because the "Persecution by Muslims" article was deleted, yet here you are suggesting keep because you think that deleted article is warranted.
As Rosywounds said, an article like this is inherently going to be original research as it inappropriately and unverifiably weaves together unrelated events. ITAQALLAH 14:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I too have noticed the inconsistent argument. Here Yahel advocates having a "Persecution by Muslims" article, yet on the other AfD he/she advocates the deletion of "Persecution by Christians" article.Bless sins (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
IT is a POV fork if one exists but not the other. Either they both stay, or they both need to go. I'd prefer they both stay, but since it seems this is going to be deleted, they both should go. Yahel Guhan 00:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Clearly this is not how you vote. You want this article to stay, but the other article to go. On other AfD you voted "delete", while here you voted "keep".Bless sins (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete for lack of addressing the subject. The problem with such articles is they become laundry lists of "this is when Muslims X have persecuted Y" which is better suited for individual articles of Ottoman Empire, Egypt, Iran, etc. than this. IFF we could have a more systemic article going about the idea of persecution then it might work... but the problem is we take general sources about events and pretend they can make an article about persecution. gren グレン 06:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, blatant POV fork and full of original research. Pahari Sahib 09:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Noor Aalam (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The subject has no article of it's own and has enough history as such to warrant it's own article. The article has been attacked by POV pushing individuals who have deleted explicit worded commentary by scholars like Mark Cohen. The obstanence of POV pushing editors who deny what scholars such as Cohen say. This is an example of the knee jerk reactionary uncollaborative quality of the current pack of POV editors on the article who have made unjustified and unethical allegations and edits deleting content (and not adding that deleted content to other like subject articles) against the article. This AFD and the accusations made against the article are blatant abuses of the policies of wikipedia. This AFD and the conduct of certain editors on the article is disrupted and not inline with the proper spirit of a collaborative effort such as wikipedia. Here at wikipedia people actually can attempt to state negative things about a subject without being silenced by a POV majority group who silenced with no scholar research of their own but rather deleting what they don't like. This article is an excellent example of information which has scholarly support being censured and or repressed under abuses of policy.LoveMonkey (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, it appears to already be extensively covered at Persecution_of_Christians#Muslim_persecution_of_Christians. --MPerel 15:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. The problem with this and the related Persecution of Christians and Christian debate on persecution and toleration (as it is unfortuantely now named) is that one is a fork of the other. Both are substantial articles, so that forking is legitimate. The problem is that the subject has not been summarised in the parent article with the addition of a "main" template, directing users to another article for detail. However, I would recommend that this and related articles should be made into a suitable tree, with a main general article (parent) and a series of more detailed ones on specific subjects. It is undoubtedly the case that there is widespread persecution of Christians today in many Muslim-majority nations. The article has numerous citations, which makes it clear that this is neither WP:OR nor WP:POV. It is a fork, but not a mere POV fork. The solution is to tidy up the structure. Perhaps User:Otolemur crassicaudatus could spare the time to do this, rather than keeping making extra contributions to this debate. I would prefer the title Muslim persecution of Christians. If there is evidence of such, Christian Persecution of Muslims, would be a legitimate subject, etc. However, we must not have parallel articles that duplicate (and probably eventually contradict) each other. I also think that ethnic conflicts (such as Bosnian/Serb and Russian/Chechyn) should be excluded, or only mentioned briefly by way of cross-reference. That also applies to the Armenian and other genocides by the Ottoman government. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
You simply ignored the reasonings provided why this article is inappropriate. "The article has numerous citations" yes, the article has. But care to the arguments above that any conflict between Muslims and Christians does not equate to conflict between Islam and Christianity. Some isolated and unrelated facts do not constitute "Islamic persecution of Christians". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - "The article has numerous citations, which makes it clear that this is neither WP:OR nor WP:POV" - This is a fundamentally flawed argument and misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. An article can have numerous citations, yet still violate original research either by inappropriate usage of those citations or by implying connections, links, or a continuity that is not verified by the sources. In this case, the problem of original research lies in the article construction and scope. ITAQALLAH 20:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
No more then you are not listening to anyone else. Your rational for deletion of the article is a distortion of wiki policy. You are not being collaborative you are being disruptive.

LoveMonkey (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment Explain why you are calling me "disruptive". What is the reason? I have provided all the reasoning why this article is inappropriate. All those who voted delete, provided reasonings for their vote. It is you who are not listening to any argument. And please note that majority of the people have given delete vote here, hence majority of the people are supporting my "disruption". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
By deleting the article and not adding any of its information to the other articles you have noted. Instead you are spending allot of time here instead. As for your other comments. I did not edit war as you and your buddies did on the article. Your buddie are the ones not listening to scholarly sources under the guise that they are being misinterpretated. Any open minded admin would read the talkpage and see just how closed mind this group of censured have been. I have never voted for an article to be deleted not ever.

LoveMonkey (talk) 13:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment I'm satisfied that persecution of Christians is covered well by the article of the same name, though I think that if a non-POV article could be written, it would be a keeper. I originally voted "keep" because it looked like we were heading to a snowball of deletes, and I think we all do well to debate the merits of the topic. That said, I think that feelings run high on this topic and that it's difficult to maintain a neutral point of view about the massacre of fellow human beings. I note that the title of the article has changed several times: "Islamic persecution of Christians"; "Muslim persecution of Christians"; "Islam and Anti-Christian sentiment"; and the current title, "Islam and Anti-Christian persecution". There have plenty of occasions, since AD 622, of non-Muslims being persecuted, because of their beliefs, by followers of Islam, but I can't see indicting all of Islam for persecution, at different times and in different places, by zealots. As a Christian, I am feel no obligation to apologize for the Spanish Inquisition. Once you turn the focus from the religion of the victims to the religion of the perpetrators, it's inevitable that there will be POV problems. Mandsford (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Which is why "Persecution of Christians" and "Persecution of Muslims" are both legitimate articles that are kept on wikipedia.Bless sins (talk) 05:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Blatant violation of POV. Dustitalk to me 17:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - another in a blatant series of POV forks. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.