 | | | This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | |  B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. | | Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. | | |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | | | B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. | | Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. | | | | |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | | | B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. | | Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. | | | |  | The history (older versions) of this talk page was unfortunately mislaid when it was moved and the corresponding move back was done by copy and paste rather than using the "move" button. You can find the history at Talk:Islam and Judaism. Wikipedia apologies for any inconvenience. | [edit] Misleading link Another hadith says: "A Jew will not be found alone with a Muslim without plotting to kill him."[42] According to another hadith, Muhammad said: "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. 'O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him'".(Sahih al-Bukhari 4:52:177) This hadith has been quoted countless times, and it has become a part of the charter of Hamas.[54] And then the link goes to a page in a book by Walter Laqueur. The link should be made directly to pertinent information within the Hamas charter.
[edit] Things in the article need to be fixed Well, here some criticism which, I hope, will be contructive.
The Judaism in theology section says " The conventional epithets in the qur'an are apes for Jews and pigs for Christians. ([Qur'an 2:61], [Qur'an 5:65], [Qur'an 7:166])[22] "
This is just not true: the Quran says God transformed one group of Jews into apes and swine because they transgressed the Sabbath (just read the verses cited). It has nothing to do with Christians, and they are certainly no "conventional epithets" for Jews! If this story has any relevance in anti-semitism (I think it does, as it is sometimes (mis)used today by anti-semitic Muslims), the wording needs to be modified. Right now it sounds as if the Quran 'conventionally' refers to Jews and Christian as apes and pigs, which isn't the case. Also, "Lewis adds, negative attributes ascribed to subject religions (in this case Judaism and Christianity) are usually expressed in religious and social terms, but very rarely in ethnic or racial terms. However, this does sometimes occur." Is there any example of the Quran insulting the Jews on the basis of their ethnicity (rather than criticizing minor points of Judaism or the behaviour of the Jews contemporary to Muhammad)? I think it wouldn't even make sense, seeing that the Jews of Medina were ethnic Arabs following Judaism. I also fail to see how the Quran could possibly abuse Christians on 'ethnic or racial terms', as Christians do not constitute a race or an ethnicity.
The section on 'remarks on Jews' is terrible. It should be totally rewritten and put in order. For example, take this paragraph:
" Walter Laqueur states that the Qur'an and its interpreters has a great many conflicting things to say about the Jews. It is really easy to find quotations stating that jihad (holy war) is the sacred duty of every Muslim, that Jews and Christians should be killed, and that this fight should continue until only the Muslim religion is left ([Qur'an 8:39]). Al-Baqara says about the Jews, slay them (the sons of apes and pigs) whenever you catch them. Jews are said to be treacherous and hypocritical and could never be friends with a Muslim.[8] Frederick M. Schweitzer and Marvin Perry state that References to Jews in the Koran are mostly negative. The Qur'an states that Wretchedness and baseness were stamped upon the Jews, and they were visited with wrath from Allah, That was because they disbelieved in Allah's revelations and slew the prophets wrongfully. And for their taking usury, which was prohibited for them, and because of their consuming people's wealth under false pretense, a painful punishment was prepared for them. The Qur'an requires their "abasement and poverty" in the form of the poll tax jizya. In his "wrath" God has "cursed" the Jews and will turn them into apes/monkeys and swine and idol worshipers because they are "infidels." Yet ordinarily, "the Jews" could not be said to have "killed" Muhammad. There is no accusation of decide, no appropriation of the Jewish bible as an Islamic sacred text, and "virtuous Hebrews" is not translated into "virtuous Muslims" in contrast to the "stiff-necked, criminal Jews."[7] " It is lapidatory to to translate 'jihad' and 'jahada' in their Quranic usage as holy war; it is not 'easy' to find verses saying that "Jews and Christians should be killed" (there is only 1 instance in the 6000+ verses of the Quran that talks about fighting 'the people of the book', in the context where the Jews of Khaybar were leagued with the Meccan ennemies of the Muslims); 8:39 says the fight should continue until people desist from fighting Muslims; the mention to Al Baqara is non-sense (the passage (2:190-193) the article quotes from (out of context) is about 'fighting those who fight you' and was directed at Pagan tribes and not Jews); Jews aren't called the sons of apes and pigs; the verses about Jews being hypocritical, treacherous, incurring the wrath of God etc. aren't about all Jews but always some particular groups of Jews, in reference to Biblical stories or to the behaviour of the Jews contemporary to Muhammad; God will not turn the Jews into apes, swine, idol worshippers etc. etc. Also: "The standard Qur'anic reference to Jews is the verse [Qur'an 2:61].[27] It says: And abasement and poverty were pitched upon them, and they were laden with the burden of God's anger; that, because they had disbelieved the signs of God and slain the Prophets unrightfully; that, because they disobeyed, and were transgressors.[28]" Among all the verses that talks about Jews, positively or negatively, who decides what the 'standart' Quranic reference is? The verse is, again, quoted out of context and truncated. (It talks about these men among the ancient Hebrews who were criticizing Moses about little things instead of being grateful for he had saved them from slavery in Egypt- that is not a general statement about Jews) I think the article should be general when dealing with the Quran's stance of Jews. It suffices to say that it harshly criticizes some members of the Jewish tribes the early Muslims encountered, that it mentions Biblical stories where some Hebrews stray from the path (as in the Golden Calf tale), but that the Jewish religion in general and its porphets are given respect and even praise (and to develop these points). But if the article needs to mention in detail all that the Quran says about Hebrew history and the Jews that lived around Muhammad, then it should be done in a fair, unbiaised way. The article is generally good and balanced, but it seems someone just inserted anti-Islam POV stuff in the middle wherever he could. The rest of the section also needs to be put in order.
The 'life under Muslim rule' section needs to be expanded. I think the theory and the practice of the laws Jews were subjected to quite varied throughout the ages and from one region to another. It has to be mentioned where and when the laws listed in the article were applied, etc.
Last point: the 'sermon' section needs to be re-written. Listing all the documented events where a Muslim preacher insult Jews in a sermon isn't encyclopedic. The section should be much more general. Important anti-semitic preachers should be named (but who on earth are these Ibrahim Mahdi, Ibrahim Al-'Ali, Sheikh Ba'd bin Abdallah Al-Ajameh Al-Ghamidi, Dr. Muhammad 'Abd Al-Sattar? Is it necessary to name them and quote them, when none of them seems important enough to have a Wikipedia page on him?) and give some examples of such anti-semitic speech, but there is no need to devote so much place to the details of all instances of Muslim anti-semitic preaching. (Just go and compare to the 'post WWII anti-semitism' section of the 'Christianity and anti-semitism' page. There are only really vague references to anti-semitic stances of Christians with no detail at all, no list of quotes and preachers etc. as there is here). More importantly, what the article should show is the stance of the leading Muslim authorities and Muslim governments or head of states, instead of bombarding the reader with quotes (it's confusing). It is the importance and frequency of these sermons that needs to be analyzed, from reliable sources.
On the other hand, I think that the importance of anti-semitism among Muslims today is not emphasized enough (I believe it is quite extremely widespread).
Also, Wikipedia usually uses Abdullah Yusuf Ali's translation of the Quran, and the verse numbering do not always match the system Yusuf Ali uses.
This section, in its entirety, is based on primary sources, translations of speeches, and would be related to an article Antisemitic comments made by Muslims in the 21st century but I fail to see how any antisemitic comment made by a notable Muslim becomes related to Islam and antisemitism. Are there any reliable secondary sources that relate these quotes to the topic of this article? If there are not the entire section should be removed as it is developing our own argument to support a premise. nableezy - 03:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC) - Well said. It'd be a bit like collecting anti-Muslim statements by Daniel Pipes, David Horowitz and other Jews from pro-Palestinian websites for an article called Judaism and Islamophobia.--G-Dett (talk) 04:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- All those statements were quoted in the 21 Century. Which were naturally fueled by the I/P conflict. I will add the "Quotefarm" for now. Imad marie (talk) 13:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- So, Nableezy, you wouldn't consider Neil J. Kressel. "The Urgent Need to Study Islamic Anti-Semitism", The Chronicle of Higher Education, "The Chronical Review", March 12, 2004, to be on the topic of Islam and antisemitism? Using it as a source would be "developing our own argument to support a premise"? Also, I think by saying "a notable Muslim" you are, no doubt unintentionally, not being entirely accurate about who is quoted there. The "notable Muslims" in question are, in fact, preachers, clerics, and other Islamic religious figures, often giving sermons. In addition, they are quoted in secondary sources; these are not handouts of their sermons they have posted on their website. You don't consider a source on antisemitic statements by Islamic religious figures to be on the topic of Islam and antisemitism? Jayjg (talk) 00:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Im sorry Jay, perhaps not every single quote is sourced to only a primary source. Almost all of them are though. Nearly every single quote in that section is sourced only to a MEMRI translation. That is a primary source is it not? Would you object to removing all of the quotes that have no secondary source? nableezy - 00:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- No. A primary source would be, for example, a Saudi textbook, or an Al Jazeera television program, or a link to the online copy of the al-Akhbar paper. A secondary source would be one that gathered and/or discussed specific selections from those materials. That secondary source could be a book, a paper, a newspaper article, or MEMRI. All secondary sources. Jayjg (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- So this MEMRI source used in the section is a secondary source? Because it is a translation of the original? Explain how that is please because I dont see how that could be true. nableezy - 00:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- That's a bit gray. The primary source would be the actual video of the speech. A transcript of the speech provided by Al-Jazeera would also be a primary source. In this case Memri has provided a transcript of some of the parts of the speech. The selection is a kind of analysis, though not a particularly strong one. In addition, the source nowhere identifies the statements as antisemitic (or anti-Jewish) - an OR issue. So, on the whole, I would consider it to be close to a primary source, and in any event an inappropriate source, primarily because of the OR. Jayjg (talk) 01:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
-
- So the comments in the section based on sources like this, just MEMRI translations, should be removed or not? nableezy - 01:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- You'd have to examine each source. Material based on this specific source should be removed. Jayjg (talk) 01:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- According to the this RS noticeboard discussion, MEMRI is not a reliable source in BLP situations, its translations are suspect, and it is good to use really only for its own opinion. Tiamuttalk 01:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- You must be reading a different RS/N discussion than I am; I see no such consensus there. Jayjg (talk) 01:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The vast bulk of this material comes from a pro-Israel website's "special dispatches," which simply translate and quote inflammatory comments allegedly made by various clerics in the Arab world in the context of the I/P conflict. The website in question has a established record of mistranslation and source-doctoring (no doubt endearing them to the primary authors of this article), and the fact that so few of these alleged quotations are discussed by legitimate sources is unsurprising. Nor do the "special dispatches" actually discuss the subject of this article, Islam and antisemitism. They just reproduce alleged quotes. They are "secondary sources" only in name. It would be like relying on "special dispatches" from Electronic Intifada reproducing alleged quotes from obscure rabbis about Palestinians and Arabs for an article called Judaism and Islamophobia. Exactly like that, in fact, except that Electronic Intifada doesn't have a history of source-doctoring.--G-Dett (talk) 01:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC) - Plus, the section is an obvious WP:UNDUE. The section is talking up too much space of the article considering it is presenting quotes from the past 20-30 years relatively to the 1400 years old Islam. Imad marie (talk) 10:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Examination of sources used As Jayjg has said we need to examine each source I figured this is as good a place as any. The first instance in the section has been agreed should be removed. I also challenge the following which are the same type of sources, MEMRI translations: In a separate statement on Al-Jazeera on January 30, 2009, al-Qaradawi expressed support, In a speech delivered by Egyptian cleric Muhammad Hussein Yacoub, On a religious Television program which aired on Al-Rahma TV on January 17, 2009, Egyptian cleric Sheik Said Al-'Afani, In a sermon delivered by Qatari cleric Sheik Muhammad Al-Muraikhi, On July 21, 2006 Syrian Deputy Minister of Religious Endowment Dr. Muhammad 'Abd Al-Sattar, In a speech aired on Al-Jazeera TV on January 11, 2009, Saudi Cleric Khaled Al-Khlewi stated that, On May 7, 2002, in a Saudi state-controlled TV station talk show entitled (a MEMRI dead link is also used for this, and is this a RS or are we just using it for the opinion of Daniel Pipes?). Do you object to the removal of these Jayjg? Or should the also be removed for the same reasons you gave above? nableezy - 02:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC) MEMRI is used as a source throughout Wikipedia. If you have any evidence that this was mistranslated or misrepresented, feel free to present it. Second, MEMRI does not analyse, offer comments, and make remarks regarding this quote. They simple provide a translation. While MEMRI is certainly selective about what articles they translate, their translations are considered accurate. More importantly, Qaradawi made this remark on a television show (i.e. a public forum) broadcast by Al-Jazerra, which is considered a relatively open and accurate media source in the Arab World. Finally, Qaradawi's comments are certainly hostile towards Jews - this, combined with the fact that he is one of the most promnient Muslim leaders in the world (i.e. he's notable). I understand your concern about the dead link - I am adding another link to MEMRITV. Registration is required to view the video but you can see it in full at: http://3arabtv.com/3arabtv/islam/view/-BH5SCUg3r8/Sheikh_Yousef_Al-Qaradhawi.html. I've also added links about this statement to Newsmax, the Times, and the JTA.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)) - You didnt respond to the issue. You are cherry picking quotes from a primary source that no secondary source has connected with the topic of this article. Look above and you will see there is agreement that at least what you reinserted should be removed as original research based off a primary source. That is the case with each of the linked reports that are used as a source in this article as well. nableezy - 21:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- actually some of the sources you added can be used, but this one is garbage. The JTA and Times are fine to support that the statement is antisemitic, but is it related to this article just because a Muslim cleric made an antisemitic statement? nableezy - 21:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
-
- Qaradhawi is not some joe blow - he is one of the most regarded and well-known Islamic thinkers in the world - That's why it is notable. (btw, after looking more closely at the Newsmax article, I agree that doesn't belong here. I'll remove it immediately.) (Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC))
-
-
- I'll admit I should have looked more closely at the talk page before reverting and I understand why you were annoyed. I've already removed the newsmax source (you were right, it is garbage). Anyways, when one of the most important and well-known Muslim leaders in the world makes this kind of statement against Jews on an internationally broadcast TV show, don't you think that qualifies as a link between Islam and Anti-Semitism?(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC))
- No I do not. If he were saying that such and such hadith or Quranic verse backs up the belief that such and such should or will happen to the Jews, then yes it would be related. Somebody giving their personal antisemitic hopes and beliefs, even if they are a cleric or whatever, is an example of a Muslim making an antisemitic comment and would fit in the article on that person. But no matter, one thing at a time. Above there is a list of sources that are the only basis for inclusion, they are all primary source translations of speeches or appearances. You need to find secondary sources connecting the topics. I wont delete anytime soon, but within a week or so I would hope everything in that list of quotes is supported by secondary sources. nableezy - 00:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- According to User:Jayjg, none of these sources or the material that relies on them should be used unless they make an explicit connection between "anti-semitism" and "Islam", as clarified here. Let us assume that he is probably right on this point. Block-quoting and highlighting chunks of text that seem to be offensive in respect of what they say about Jews and others, as translated by MEMRI et al, and inserting this into the article on the basis of an unstated assertion/assumption that it is anti-semitic is of course a clear case of WP:SYNTH, unless that interpretation is explicitly confirmed by a reliable, secondary source. However "obvious" it might seem to you, I or anyone else. And we haven't even got to WP:UNDUE, WP:COATRACK or WP:RS yet. Consistency in the application of the rules is important after all, unless we live in the world of double standards. --Nickhh (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
A statement by an Islamic person about Jews doesn't belong in an article about Islam unless that person has a claim to represent Islam. That means he has to be someone widely considered an authority on the subject, not just some random cleric with a loose mouth. I wonder if anyone here can honestly claim to have ever heard of most of these quotees before. Zerotalk 12:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC) [edit] Sorry chaps But if responsible study of secondary sources in order to ensure precise, unequivocal and accurate information in wiki's neutral voice gets onto the page means one must, once more, be hauled back into the rather obtusely bureaucratic gamespeopleplay world of wiki, where everybody appears to prefer cavilling over the elementary rules of composition instead of actually reading up on the topic of an article, then it's not for me. I've had to wear this sort of attrition on the Israel Shahak article, where the rules have been used for 5 years to stop the page being written. By nature I am neither a masochist, nor by profession, someone who wants to waste his time in small chat over casuistics. Disgraceful really. . A parting word. Jay, you're in a patent WP:COI in defending bad scholarship that just happens to make Islam look like its foundational text incites to genocide of the Jews, and it stands out like dog's balls. I think Arbcom sanctions here apply, and since no one on Arbcom will enforce them on you, there is no reason I should not simply read them as I have, until the recent review, i.e. that my right to edit these areas, even if borderline, has been withdrawn. It's none of my business if you can get away with nibbling at the border. Goodbye. Nishidani (talk) 12:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC) - Nah, stay on and fix this mess Nishidani. Don't lose heart on account of wikilawyering. First of all, of your five sources your opponent implies don't address the topic of this article, the three I've managed to check online do in fact address it, explicitly. Remember, bluffing is often a big part of any good wikilawyer's playbook. Secondly, there's no reason a manifestly false and badly sourced sentence can't simply be removed; the fact that the threshold of inclusion is verifiability does not mean the threshold of exclusion is non-verifiability. We have to be selective in our use of sources and source-material; this article is already far too long and repetitive, and the Laqueur sentence in question is badly written, inaccurate, sloppily formulated, and cherry-picked for inclusion here by Wikipedians with an agenda that in this instance trumps their commitment to a serious encyclopedia.
- Finally – and I'm sorry to lecture to you, because I have enormous respect for your vision of the encyclopedia – finally, I say, don't totally lose heart in the rules themselves. Yes, they can be gamed, but most of the time the gaming involves misrepresention of the rules, not over-observance of them. You've provided a very eloquent account of some of the problems with this travesty of an article, but if you ask yourself, "How did it get this way? What lines were crossed?" the rules provide a simple, powerful, and widely recognized (among the larger community of uninvolved editors) rubric of explanation. This article is
-
- managed like a POV-fork (sources that describe mistreatment of Jews under Islam are "on topic," sources that describe tolerance or cordial relations are "off topic");
-
- filled with cherry-picked and radically distorted source materials (NPOV);
-
- chock-a-block with tendentious original research, especially in the quote-farm section, the use of the Pew poll, and so on.
- If you go to the community and say there's a borderline POVFORK article that's been a nationalist BATTLEground for several years now, and it's non-POV in its use of source materials, as well as being larded with original research, can you help me fix it? you'll get more of a response than if you try to explain the weedy minutiae of the Laqueur problem, which after all is only symptomatic.
- In short, the only true protection against rampant COI editing (whether nationalist COI or any other kind) is the periodic attention of the wider community, and the only way to make such problems legible and interesting to people who are right now thinking about elephant seals, sestinas, David Bowie and astrophysics is by reference to the core editing principles – aka "rules" – we all share and accept.--G-Dett (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Nishidani, I have no "WP:COI" here (please read the linked article carefully), nor have I "defended bad scholarship". I've challenged your original research, and been met in turn by a barrage of words, literally thousands of them, on all sorts of topics. Challenging OR is not "defending bad scholarship"; in fact, it's generally the exact opposite. Jayjg (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
-
- Jayjg. You have been exhaustively answered, in comprehensive detail, on every single issue you raised. Your response, from go to woe, has been, more or less, to repeat your initial judgements verbatim. To have enormous confidence that one is infallible, to make a short series of obiter dicta judgements, and not only refuse to concede on any point raised by an interlocutor or a broader community, but sweep away, with the repetitive liturgy of one's stated beliefs, all attentive murmurs from the wings as an improper challenge to one's soi-disant authoritative voice as unworthy of consideration, comes over as Sir Oracle posturing (See Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice Act 1, Scene 1). That, Jay, is not how wikipedia works. To convince oneself is not particularly difficult. To ground one's beliefs in rational terms a larger community, with equal rights, authority and knowledge, can appreciate and accept, is often not easy, but to do so shows the spirit of bona fides in which wikipedia editing is formally anchored. Let us leave it at that, since, a third eye, watching on in utter detachment, would probably interbreed Yeat's 'Ego Dominus Tuus' and his 'The Second Coming' with Gloucester's words in Shakespeare's Lear, and mutter, 'Tis the time’s plague when the rhetorician would deceive his neighbours,the self-persuaded himself while leading the blind, and anarchy is loosed upon wikipedia.' Ending, (really this is more than enough?), on a light self-ironical note. Join me in withdrawing, and let the larger community decide. Nishidani (talk) 08:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm reading this long discussion a month later - why have there been no sources posted? If the "scholarly concensus" says X, great - let's see sources. All this talk of liturgy, and Yeats, and so on is very nice, but in the end, Wiki needs references. That goes for both sides, of course. This discussion is a headache to read because everyone substitutes paragraphs and paragraphs for links. -moritheilTalk 12:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] How is this article different from Antisemitism in the Arab world? How is this article different from Antisemitism in the Arab world (which used to have the faintly comical title Arabs and antisemitism)? Just wondering. Yeah, I know there are Muslims beyond the borders of "the Arab world." But it's not like this article's big into Indonesia or anything. Besides say, the two-sentence section on Iran, I don't see how these two articles' purviews aren't basically identical.--G-Dett (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC) - So what is your suggestion exactly? JaakobouChalk Talk 16:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Combine them.--G-Dett (talk) 02:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
-
- Don't combine them. This article deals with the religion Islam. There are many different peoples in the Arab world, not all are Muslim. There many Islamic countries and peoples who are not in the Arab world. Anti-semitism seems to be spreading in contemporary Islamic discourse. This modern fusion of Islam and anti-semitism is a VERY SPECIFIC phenomena and a major political flash point in the world. It's not some crackpot conspiracy theory, it's just an essential page that a modern online encyclopedia should have. Many books and news articles in top-tier publications have been published on the topic. Wikipedia needs an article on the topic, too. Clearlight418 (talk) 05:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Have you read the article? Nearly all of it is devoted to antisemitism in the Middle East. There is probably 10k worth of material about Islam itself and not about Muslims in the Middle East. nableezy - 05:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. Couldn't this be fixed by editing the article in question to focus on what it should focus on? -moritheilTalk 12:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Nableezy - I have read through the articles. One covers Anti-semitism in geographical places (the Arab world). This article, mostly, covers anti-Semitism in Islamic texts and statements by religious leaders. They are as different topics, and both are fairly major in the current political situation. There is TONS of blazing propaganda on the Web and WP needs to have a fair, factual, cited, collaboratively-edited article on these major topics. If there is a quality or citation issue, please discuss and make improvements! But Wikipedia is no poorer for having a distinct article - as long as it is non-spam, non-commercial, guideline following - on a major world issue that people are highly interested in or on a distinct aspect of a major world issue. Lets focus on making good, new Wikipedia articles and improving them, rather than destroying them. I don't want to see people deleting stuff for political purposes and am very cautious about people wanting to delete and merge established page on major world phenomena... there has to be an urgent reason and absolutely zero chance that personal politics is involved in the rationale. Peace! Clearlight418 (talk) 04:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- A huge chunk of this article is devoted to the section Antisemitism in the Islamic Middle East. Change the "in the Arab world" article to "in the Middle East" and they are redundant. The issues dealing with Islam and antisemitism could then be merged to Islam and Judaism. nableezy - 04:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Peace to you too, but would you mind not modifying your comment after it has been responded to? And keep ideas that personal politics play a role in this unwritten, of the editors who have voiced the opinion that merging the relevant material to other locations most are not Muslim, Arab, or have any other personal stake in the issue. nableezy - 05:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- I remain extremely cautious and skeptical when someone wants to merge or delete a well-established, non-spam article on a politically volatile - yet undeniably relevant and high-interest topic (like abortion, gun control, Israeli-Arab conflict, Gaza, gay rights, political scandal, etc.) Usually, what happens is Wikipedia users get shafted out of information they were looking for - and the site's information wealth becomes poorer, not richer. And information outside of Wikipedia is so biased and unchecked on these "hot" topics - much it is blatant emotional propaganda - the world is blessed to have a Wikipedia page on hot topics with collaborative edits, dissenting viewpoints, and required citations. Clearlight418 (talk) 05:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- I remember when I once thought that Wikipedia was not full of "biased and unchecked ... blatant emotional propaganda". nableezy - 07:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- From what I can see, Clearlight wrote, "information outside of Wikipedia is so biased and unchecked . . . " not that Wikipedia itself is. -moritheilTalk 12:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
|
