Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Persecution by Muslims

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. There seems to be a consensus here that this article is not fit for inclusion in Wikipedia. There is less of a consensus that the general subject is non-notable, but proposed recreation must go through WP:DRV. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution by Muslims

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm pessimistic as to whether this will work, given this latest fad on Wikipedia of Muslim-baiting among some editors (for the record, I might as well say that I think that the Mohammed article should have his pic in it - this is a different cup of tea altogether though) but let's at least try. The article is a straight up POV WP:COATRACK which basically synthesizes everything bad done by a person or people who happened to be Muslim to others. It's obvious agenda pushing. None of the sources deal with the subject of the article, they're just cherry picked for anecdotes and isolated statements. Volunteer Marek 17:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 October 4. Snotbot t • c » 17:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the form of the article is not proper for an encyclopedia. The information is notable and important and is already covered in other articles, as show by the "main article" links on the top of each section. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid topic. Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 17:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: please note that an assertion is not an argument, and statements like these are generally discarded when closing AfDs.

Note to Miacek - since you've never edited that article but came to it only after I made the edit, I guess that settles the question of who's following who around. Volunteer Marek 21:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A valid topic, but is it a valid article? The majority of, if not all, the major religions have persecuted others, and atheists have had a go in some places too. (Not sure about Buddhist persecution of others...) All this does is group together links to one set of the articles about systematic persecutions, with short bits of padding. I would see an article about the rationale for persecution (and preferably better use for the title. And similarly for the other religions. (The atheists would be exempt from the holy books bit, of course.) No, I'm not volunteering. Peridon (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that plenty of Sri Lankan Tamils would consider Buddhist persecution to exist. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I give my reasons for the article in Talk:Persecution by Muslims. Islam has been in power for 14 centuries and has ruled land from the Atlantic to Indonesia. This vast history has many facets and we have a vast array of articles of different aspects of Islamic history. We have a similar article for Persecution by Christians, which is the defining article for the Category:Persecution by Christians. This category has 12 subcategories and 41 sub-sub-categories. If the subject is so vast and distributed among so many articles it makes sense to have a brief article to introduce and direct the reader. I wouldn’t suggest Persecution by Iroquois to discuss the vast genocide and ethnical cleansing of the Iroquois Wars. However, in the cases of Christianity and Islam we have 17 and 14 centuries of being in power. I believe the article on Persecution by Muslims is superior to the article Persecution by Christians in that I carefully explained limits to persecution inherent in Islamic law and practice--to give the reader a heads-up to the scope and context without going into the full history. I cite well known mainstream authors (as often as I can) as well as classic textbooks (7th editions!) However, my main purpose is to redirect the reader and not duplicate the details of the individual articles. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The fact that we have a bad Persecution by Christians article is not a reason to have a bad Persecution by Muslims article, it's an argument for deleting both. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, I thought my argument was a defense of both. Question begging isn't a good argument. In both cases I don't see how a factual description of the plight of victims of any religion (or nation) is demonizing. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - We already have "Persecution of" articles; this is clearly not about the victims. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jason, somehow I'm not buying your explanation since you've included things like the fact that some pirates who happened to be Muslims engaged in... well, piracy, as an example of "Persecution by Muslim". And there's other nonsense like that in there. Remove it and there's basically nothing left inthe article. Volunteer Marek 20:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Persecution by Christians is not an article. It's a redirect and a stupid one to boot. I've sent it to RfD. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless a specific user or users volunteer to improve it with proper sourcing and neutrality, in which case userfy. Peridon's point is valid. The article in its current state is just plain old synthe, and given that this is just a gluing-together of other articles there's no real content to preserve; the clear and obvious intent is to demonize Muslims, as seems to be a favorite pastime of many users here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Glue together? Most of the summaries select core examples with references. It isn't a cut-n-paste of the lead paragraphs of the articles. Can I use help? Damn right. And I'd gladly appreciate it. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Core examples"??? Like the fact that some pirates who happened to be Muslim engaged in ... wait for it, wait for it... piracy! Or the fact that "invading forces", which happened to be Muslim, invaded something? Cuz, you know, that's not usually what "invading forces" do. Volunteer Marek 21:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It seems reasonable to have an article providing a general overview of this varied and extensive topic. That this form can be similarly used in other areas is not a valid argument. Ankh.Morpork 20:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rename to Muslim persecution. This is basically the same, but produces more hits in Google books and especially Google scholar (see Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). Yes, it would make more sense creating something more specific, like Muslim persecution of Christians (this is now wrong redirect to Persecution of Christians!), Muslim persecution of Buddists, and so on, and then make a list for different types of Muslim persecution. But we have such list already: this page. Please check the requirements for WP:List. They are not the same as for regular articles. There is no need in a single source to include all objects of the list. The objects of a list can be compiled from different sources. My very best wishes (talk) 02:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rename as List of POV attacks against Muslims inserted into Wikipedia. Either outcome is fine. Carrite (talk) 06:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless you are going to make an argument that there was no persecution of representatives of other religions by Muslims on the religious grounds, this list has every right to exist. But the facts of this are so numerous (consider the destruction of Buddhas of Bamiyan by Taliban as one of the recent examples) and described in so many sources that I am surprised we are even having this discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the article concerning History of persecutions by Christians has vanished as well, I think it is unbalanced to keep this one in. Meanwhile, there still is a category called Category:Persecution by Christians. I would suggest to delete this Persecution by Muslims-article and create a similar category (insofar there is no similar category already) for this religion. Meanwhile, I could predict that this article eventually would end up in a long, tiresome list of referenced items about small incidents with a muslem in it. I don't think an encyclopedia would benefit from such an article.Jeff5102 (talk) 07:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The deletion of that article was unilaterally done by User:Volunteer Marek without an AfD. Don't be surprised if it comes back. I share your fear about the abuse. I think User:My very best wishes has a good suggestion about a WP:List article. What do you think? Jason from nyc (talk) 11:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Carrite. This is racist garbage.--Sum (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Criticism of Islam. I see this is the only big "persecution by faith" article we have, the Christian one redirects to Persecution of pagans by the Christian Roman Empire. I am not convinced this topic is notable. At the very least I'd like to see one academic article or book by reliable publisher dedicated to this very topic. Pending that, I say merge/redirect. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously a topic that's been covered in tons of reliable sources, and this article isn't so bad that it needs to be blown up. SummerWithMorons needs to learn that Islam isn't a racial thing. Also, don't move to "Muslim persecution" — that would equally well embrace this topic and Persecution of Muslims, and titles need to be ambiguous. Nyttend (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Un-' ?? Peridon (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be 'racist garbage' precisely, but it does smack of bigotry. Volunteer Marek 22:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, yes, "titles need to be ambiguous". And precisely how does the current content smack of bigotry? We have simple factual statements here, and rather than being a list of small incidents with Muslims, these are huge concepts spanning hundreds of years. Nyttend (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the only logical argument against this page is following: the articles on such subjects are already included in Category:Religion-based wars and other similar categories. Therefore, we do not need such lists. Still, I am not convinced there is anything seriously problematic here.My very best wishes (talk) 02:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any serious problems with that article. The only problem there seems to be is that according to some users any reference to persecution by muslims is per se 'bigotry' if not 'racism'.--Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 08:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The serious problem is that is a WP:SYNTH violating WP:COATRACK attack article. I'm not the only one who thinks that there are serious problems here. And you can try to whitewash bigotry by calling opposition to it "political correctness", but it's still bigotry. Volunteer Marek 20:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must protest these accusations of bigotry. Bigotry is unwarranted criticism usually with ill intent. This is an attack on my “good will”. I wrote the article with care to mention the traditions and practices that limited persecution. I found the article as a redirect to persecution of Christians [1] and made it into a disambiguous page [2]. I don’t know about list articles but my intention was to redirect, not fork, given that the information (which spans 1400 years and half the globe) is organized by victim group. At that point I thought a brief intro was in order to inform the reader although I had reservations about going down that path. It was at this point at Marek inserted a coatrack without any talk--just an edit comment “freakin a', here we go again, another attack article.” He is opposed to the article and the Category:Persecution by Muslims as he has deleted entries in the related category with a comment “inappropriate category, both specifically here as well as generally.” I’m thick skinned but I fear spurious charges of bigotry can discourage others from editing and contributing. If my sources are inadequate or there is a better way to help the reader research 14 centuries of history I’d appreciate the help. But please no attacks. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per Persecution by Christians, Persecution by Romans, Persecution by the British, Persecution by Jews, Persecution by Americans, Persecution by Shinto. Clearly one can cobble various such topics if one tries even moderately hard, but serious sources don't. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One can find information on those topics but one has to work hard. For example, Religious persecution in the Roman Empire, Religious_persecution#Case_of_early_modern_England, Religious_freedom#Religious_intolerance, Freedom_of_Religion_in_the_United_States#Situation_of_minority_groups, etc. Notice that some of the persecution is in "religious freedom" articles. You added excellent cases to our article on Persecution by Muslims that I didn't find. That's why we need to help the readers with pointers to the information that is distributed among many many articles in Wikipedia. Consider changing your vote?Jason from nyc (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I worked on this for a bit to take it away from the "persecution of Jews" "persecution of Christians" formula which made it look rather uninformative and agenda-driven. I note that the creation of Category:Persecution by Muslims went unchallenged. This "article" could be kept as a companion WP:SAL to that category (per WP:NOTDUP). The concern that the topic as whole is not covered in any source remains an impediment to an article. The criteria for lists on Wikipedia has always been rather nebulous and decided mostly by consensus rather than by sources. I'm reserved as to whether that's a good idea in this case. I've withdrawn my "delete" !vote; I'm basically neutral for now. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as propaganda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Volunteer Marek Dlv999 (talk) 14:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Could be renamed. The one on Christians is entitled History of persecutions by Christians. Standard stuff. Wikipedia shouldn't be WP:CENSORED because someone doesn't like the material. There has been a major element within Islam since the earliest days similar to America's KKK organization that is totally out of control but the majority of Muslims try to ignore it (or clandestinely support it) which persecutes all non-believers. But most often Muslims whose practices appear to be drifting. They haven't had neat titles like KKK, until recently (Taliban, Al'Queda, Religious police of Saudi Arabia) but this doesn't really cover it since there is often no formal organization. Student7 (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: this user was canvassed here by the creator of the article [3]. And I think the comparison of Islam to the KKK speaks for itself as far as the seriousness of this vote goes. Volunteer Marek 17:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sidenote by a random editor: it looks like Student7 is comparing terrorist groups (listing three examples) to KKK, and not Islam. Besides, the author's desire to gain support in an attempt to keep an article they created seems quite legitimate. Volunteer Marek, what's your point? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what he's doing. He writes "until recently". Which implies a comparison of KKK to historical Islam. "Terrorist groups" are nowhere mentioned in the article.

And in regard to Besides, the author's desire to gain support in an attempt to keep an article they created seems quite legitimate - no, that's actually the essence of the WP:CANVASS policy. You may disagree or agree with it, but it is currently policy, and those kind of actions are considered disruptive (and possibly block worthy). Volunteer Marek 21:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to this particular point: what he did falls under WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification and therefore, is not a reason to disqualify his vote (since there actually are several valid ones). On the other hand, when the nominator leaves notes to the closing admin right after "Keep" nominations with restating the obvious and borderline ad hominem remarks... now that's questionable. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what he did falls under WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification - um... NO. It actually doesn't. This user isn't a WikiProject nor a central location (AFIAA). This user was not mentioned in the discussion. And the notification very clearly fails "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions". Volunteer Marek 03:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I explained this to you in my talk. I notified "editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)" (to quote from WP:CANVAS). In this case I informed Student7 and User:SummerWithMorons at the same time. They were both editors of Persecution by Christians which you deleted without an AfD by blanking out the page and turning it into a redirect. Clearly I didn’t cherry picked Sum for his/her contribution above (i.e. “Delete per Carrite. This is racist garbage.”) I had no idea what either of them might think or how they might contribute. I only look at the edit history. I explained this to you in my talk but you continue to misrepresent what I did as you misrepresent the article we are discussing. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The comment by Student7 is pretty confusing. I only wish to address one point from it, as I understood his concern. We do have an article on Islamic fundamentalism as a whole. (And also on Islamism, Islamofascism, Islamic terrorism, etc.) Tijfo098 (talk) 21:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Persecution of one group of religious adherents by another should be covered in a series of articles relating to those persecuted, i.e. persecution of Christians, persecution of Muslims, etc. No further articles needed. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Completely valid topic. That it's a bad article is irrelevant. Seems like some people want some things brushed under the rug. YvelinesFrance (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this is essentially a "revenge" vote by a brand new single purpose account because I reverted their sketchy OR and POV pushing on the Race and Intelligence article: [4].

And before someone pipes up that I'm replying to too many votes, let's be real here for a second: anyone who's been around Wikipedia for any time knows how troublesome the whole R&I/Muslim/IP topic area is, how infested it is with sock puppets and meat puppets and how in both talk page and AfD discussions policy is completely ignored by many "editors" in favor of prejudicial block voting. To have even a chance of a policy-based outcome it is sadly necessary to point out the shenanigans as they happen. Volunteer Marek 20:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remark: "point out the shenanigans" (as if admins can't figure it out for themselves?) in a manner worthy of finest of spammers, after almost every vote that's not in your favor. Hmm... am I the only one who smells POV pushing – not to mention repeated violations of WP:NPA (which I already brought to this thread's attention)? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete if even under whatever consideration or retitling might make the something close to this topic something potentially encyclopedic, there is nothing within the current article that would be appropriate for a rewrite. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete POV fork. The title discourages any attempt at balance. Any coverage of this topic should arise organically out of an article with a broader range.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteAn article on Persecution by religions might be interesting if we could get a global balance. Singling out Islam is inappropriate. Bielle (talk) 22:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Religious persecution is usually conducted by state or by representatives of other religions. This led to killings, religious wars and a lot of other things. I do not see any problems with describing this as persecution of representatives of any religion or by representatives of any specific religion. What's the difference? My very best wishes (talk) 04:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article on the global phenomenon of persecution by religions puts it in perspective. A singular article on any one religion lacks perspective and makes a bogeyman out of a single group. Bielle (talk) 05:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can not describe all religious groups in one article. That's why we have whole Category:Religious persecution. Among them are Category:Persecution of Christians‎ and Category:Persecution by Christians‎. Why Muslims are different? My very best wishes (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't. There are balanced categories for Christians and Muslims, that is true. There is no article, just a redirect, at Persecution by Christians, however, nor should there be one. There aren't even categories for Category:Persecution by Jews‎ or Category:Persecution by Scientologists or Category:Persecution by Hindus, for example. Too much focus on a single negative aspect not unique to this group. Bielle (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An obvious coatrack article. Cla68 (talk) 23:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but tag for major rewrite/copyedit/wikifying. The topic is notable and broad enough to merit its own article, but the existing one is poorly constructed – we shouldn't confuse those two issues. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per Bielle. Do not recreate until there is consensus to have "Persecution by ..." articles for other religions. J N 466 18:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But we have already whole Category:Persecution by Christians‎. There is consensus already. My very best wishes (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is there any positive consensus that that cat should exist or is its existence merely because it has flown beneath the radar? There is no inducation of any consensus on its rather blank talk page. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Quite apart from that, a category is very different from an article. There is clearly no consensus to have articles like that for other religions. Generally speaking, Wikipedia has categories for lots of things that do not have articles; and the existence of a category does not indicate that an article would be viable, or desirable. Take e.g. Category:German mass murderers or Category:Mexican fraudsters; there are no articles named German mass murderers or Mexican fraudsters, nor would they be considered appropriate. J N 466 21:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - We do have List of Nazis. Why not? This is just for the sake of argument. My very best wishes (talk) 03:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - If I'm allowed to elaborate on JNN's argument: articles for contentious broad topics like this one (or JNN's other examples) are difficult to write. Because (to my knowledge) there are no sources treating (any of) these topics as a whole, establishing proper wp:weight for the various parts of the article is essentially an exercise in WP:OR. And this is a real concern. Look for example at Talk:Caste to see how contentious something like that can be; there we do have sources covering the topic as a whole, and it's still difficult to write a wp:balanced overview. On the other hand, dealing with a category (or a list) is simpler because there's no "how much coverage should this sub-topic get" issue. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        You correctly indicate the challenges of an article with respect to weights. However, there are also some challenges to using categories. As you may have noticed, our article is little more than a list of sections with links to main articles where the particular persecuted group is discussed--it's a disambiguation page (or a list article) with brief comments. In many cases the main article is a section of the article on the group. For example, Persecution_of_Buddhists#Persecution_by_Muslims. Strictly speaking I should not put Persecution_of_Buddhists in the Category:Persecution by Muslims because the defining characteristic doesn't contain "by Muslims." I have mistakenly put this and a few other articles in the category in question because I thought it had information that one wants to find in via the category. I was recently corrected and reviewing the Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles it is clear that I was in error. I believe this makes it clear that a disambiguation page or list page is needed since we are directing people to parts of an article in many cases. I now believe Persecution by Muslims should be nothing more--but it is needed in that function. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This is clearly, clearly a WP:COATRACK, based on the title of the article. It's not a guideline or policy, per se... but WP:NUKEANDPAVE may be in order here. Nothing good can come of this. Roodog2k (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.