![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I think the npov tag should remain on the article until all issues are resolved. VolunteerMarek 18:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I reverted the article back to where Altetendekrabbe removed the POV tag. At that point it was clear there was significant agreement between both sides of this dispute. Let's scrap the rancor that happened just after that point. Now then, Altetendekrabbe, there seem to be two points of contention left. 1) Adding more sidebars and 2) removing Anders Breivik. I don't think we need any more sidebars. This article is relatively small and it wouldn't do to have it turn into a side-bar-o-rama. For removing Breivik, I see the point. I can go either way. -- Frotz( talk) 22:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
With regard to Durie I think we've reached consensus to keep it out.
With regard to Breivik - it's a reliable high quality source, it directly supports the text that is being included, it is obviously notable (the fact that breivik used the term and how he used it), and it is relevant. So I really don't see any reason for removal except some kind of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT
With regard to the side bar - the underlying problem is that the very subject of this article, "Dhimmitude" is a POV-loaded term itself, usually used by people with a particular ideology. Part of that ideology/POV is the view that Muslims always and everywhere discriminate against non-Muslims and that this discrimination is captured by this term. But once again - this is just a POV of a particular ideology. If this sidebar was text we could properly attribute it (so and so says that Dhimmitude reflects discrimination etc.) But with a sidebar we cannot do this. Since we cannot properly attribute a sidebar the only recourse is simply to remove it. This is the same as if someone tried to put an "Apartheid" side bar in the article on Israel or something - it'd be POV, just like it is here. In fact, given the generally fringe usage of the term, by fringe folks, an "Islamophobia" sidebark would make a ton more sense than the "Discrimination side bar".
VolunteerMarek 18:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Back to Breivik - I'm putting him back in unless someone can show that the source in question is not reliable. VolunteerMarek 17:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Nm, I see Frotz already put it back in. Thanks for that. VolunteerMarek 17:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think I violated anything I think you just WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 09:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The RoR states "However, discrimination against Jews has relegated them to second-class status under Arab hegemony (“dhimmitude”) since the successful uniting of the tribes in the Arabian peninsula by Muhammad (570–632) in the sixth century. ".Please explaing what incorrect I used direct quote-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 18:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I see that blind and unconstructive reverting is again happening on this page. These bits [1] [2] have now been repeatedly reverted back into the article, despite the fact that both are heavily ungrammatical broken English, without at least making some attempt at correcting them in the process.
Are you people not even reading what garbage you are pushing into the article?
To Shrike, who seems to be the main source of such material: I appreciate that English is evidently not your native language, and non-native speakers are generally quite welcome to contribute here, to the extent of their abilities. However, if your command of the language is so poor that you risk objectively degrading the quality of articles when editing them, it is crucial that you be aware of your limitations and seek to minimize the damage. Also, while there are many things people with less than perfect English can usefully do on Wikipedia, negotiating difficult details about NPOV and correct treatment of sources, in advanced fields of theoretical debate, is not one of them. If you risk disrupting a talk discussion because you can't make yourself appropriately understood or because you fail to understand the finer points others are making, you should consider focussing your work on less linguistically demanding topic areas.
To prevent further damage to the text and further occasions for reverting, I strongly recommend you make it a habit of first proposing all substantial additions of text on the talk page and seek help copyediting them if necessary. If you won't do this voluntarily, I might consider imposing it as a formal restriction under ARBPIA. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Does this article fall under ARBPIA? It seems like it should. VolunteerMarek 15:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
please remove this reference. the source is not appropriate as per this discussion on the rs/n [3]. in addition, tibi does not state anything about inferior status. that's a misrepresentation. the "freedom of religion"-phrase is given without the historical context (medieval regimes, muslim or non-muslim, were not modern democracies), hence it's misleading.-- altetendekrabbe 07:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
[4]. THIS is precisely why telling people "you should use DR processes" doesn't work. When DR process, such as asking for input at RSN have no binding power, and no threat of sanction behind them, they get ignored at will. I honestly don't see how much clearer the consensus at RSN could've been with regard to ERR. VolunteerMarek 03:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Lewis use the term only once in the whole article it would be WP:UNDUE and if we will use his definition we should use perlamutter too.-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 17:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
This neologism hasn't caught on outside discussion of Bat Ye'or's ideas, and some extremists who claim to be inspired by her. Therefore, redirect to her biography, explain the concept there - there is space enough. Itsmejudith ( talk) 11:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
In the lede I find the assertion that dhimmi "literally means protected". It doesn't. First of all, it's a noun: It describes a person being in some specific condition, state or cicumstance. Many Arabic words ending in -i do this, e.g. a Hajji is somebody having performed Hajj, or a Takfiri is sombody who committed Takfir, etc.
For the translation let's turn to the large standard scientific dictionary of Arabic, the Hans Wehr, 4th. ed.: - dhimmi: subject of a pact of protection, free non-muslim subject in Muslim states (see dhimma, ahl al-dhimma) - dhimma: tutelage, protection; pact of protection, treaty; responsibility, obligation (to pay), debt; inviolability, protection for life and limb; protection, guarantee, security; conscience; rebuke, disapproval
There is no literal English translation. I tried to fix this, but was reverted.
88.75.8.48 ( talk) 01:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Adding the discrimination category and side-bar implies that "Dhimmitude" is real. But from the article we can see that Dhimmitude is at best a controversial concept and at worst a myth. We can't treat it as fact. VR talk 03:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
by the same logic there wasn't any racism in the United States, it's all in the past and can't be verified today and shouldn't be in Wikipedia. Nor is there any such thing as Islamophobia, it just happens that 90% of all terriorist are of the Islamic religion, again it can't be verified can it. Or does just publishing a book act as that verifiable fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.79.224.1 ( talk) 02:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
why ist this in the "regressive left" category? Who's the one meant? Tibi, Gemayel, Yeor, Lewis? Please elaborate or delete 178.2.122.80 ( talk) 13:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I think the npov tag should remain on the article until all issues are resolved. VolunteerMarek 18:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I reverted the article back to where Altetendekrabbe removed the POV tag. At that point it was clear there was significant agreement between both sides of this dispute. Let's scrap the rancor that happened just after that point. Now then, Altetendekrabbe, there seem to be two points of contention left. 1) Adding more sidebars and 2) removing Anders Breivik. I don't think we need any more sidebars. This article is relatively small and it wouldn't do to have it turn into a side-bar-o-rama. For removing Breivik, I see the point. I can go either way. -- Frotz( talk) 22:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
With regard to Durie I think we've reached consensus to keep it out.
With regard to Breivik - it's a reliable high quality source, it directly supports the text that is being included, it is obviously notable (the fact that breivik used the term and how he used it), and it is relevant. So I really don't see any reason for removal except some kind of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT
With regard to the side bar - the underlying problem is that the very subject of this article, "Dhimmitude" is a POV-loaded term itself, usually used by people with a particular ideology. Part of that ideology/POV is the view that Muslims always and everywhere discriminate against non-Muslims and that this discrimination is captured by this term. But once again - this is just a POV of a particular ideology. If this sidebar was text we could properly attribute it (so and so says that Dhimmitude reflects discrimination etc.) But with a sidebar we cannot do this. Since we cannot properly attribute a sidebar the only recourse is simply to remove it. This is the same as if someone tried to put an "Apartheid" side bar in the article on Israel or something - it'd be POV, just like it is here. In fact, given the generally fringe usage of the term, by fringe folks, an "Islamophobia" sidebark would make a ton more sense than the "Discrimination side bar".
VolunteerMarek 18:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Back to Breivik - I'm putting him back in unless someone can show that the source in question is not reliable. VolunteerMarek 17:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Nm, I see Frotz already put it back in. Thanks for that. VolunteerMarek 17:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think I violated anything I think you just WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 09:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The RoR states "However, discrimination against Jews has relegated them to second-class status under Arab hegemony (“dhimmitude”) since the successful uniting of the tribes in the Arabian peninsula by Muhammad (570–632) in the sixth century. ".Please explaing what incorrect I used direct quote-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 18:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I see that blind and unconstructive reverting is again happening on this page. These bits [1] [2] have now been repeatedly reverted back into the article, despite the fact that both are heavily ungrammatical broken English, without at least making some attempt at correcting them in the process.
Are you people not even reading what garbage you are pushing into the article?
To Shrike, who seems to be the main source of such material: I appreciate that English is evidently not your native language, and non-native speakers are generally quite welcome to contribute here, to the extent of their abilities. However, if your command of the language is so poor that you risk objectively degrading the quality of articles when editing them, it is crucial that you be aware of your limitations and seek to minimize the damage. Also, while there are many things people with less than perfect English can usefully do on Wikipedia, negotiating difficult details about NPOV and correct treatment of sources, in advanced fields of theoretical debate, is not one of them. If you risk disrupting a talk discussion because you can't make yourself appropriately understood or because you fail to understand the finer points others are making, you should consider focussing your work on less linguistically demanding topic areas.
To prevent further damage to the text and further occasions for reverting, I strongly recommend you make it a habit of first proposing all substantial additions of text on the talk page and seek help copyediting them if necessary. If you won't do this voluntarily, I might consider imposing it as a formal restriction under ARBPIA. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Does this article fall under ARBPIA? It seems like it should. VolunteerMarek 15:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
please remove this reference. the source is not appropriate as per this discussion on the rs/n [3]. in addition, tibi does not state anything about inferior status. that's a misrepresentation. the "freedom of religion"-phrase is given without the historical context (medieval regimes, muslim or non-muslim, were not modern democracies), hence it's misleading.-- altetendekrabbe 07:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
[4]. THIS is precisely why telling people "you should use DR processes" doesn't work. When DR process, such as asking for input at RSN have no binding power, and no threat of sanction behind them, they get ignored at will. I honestly don't see how much clearer the consensus at RSN could've been with regard to ERR. VolunteerMarek 03:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Lewis use the term only once in the whole article it would be WP:UNDUE and if we will use his definition we should use perlamutter too.-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 17:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
This neologism hasn't caught on outside discussion of Bat Ye'or's ideas, and some extremists who claim to be inspired by her. Therefore, redirect to her biography, explain the concept there - there is space enough. Itsmejudith ( talk) 11:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
In the lede I find the assertion that dhimmi "literally means protected". It doesn't. First of all, it's a noun: It describes a person being in some specific condition, state or cicumstance. Many Arabic words ending in -i do this, e.g. a Hajji is somebody having performed Hajj, or a Takfiri is sombody who committed Takfir, etc.
For the translation let's turn to the large standard scientific dictionary of Arabic, the Hans Wehr, 4th. ed.: - dhimmi: subject of a pact of protection, free non-muslim subject in Muslim states (see dhimma, ahl al-dhimma) - dhimma: tutelage, protection; pact of protection, treaty; responsibility, obligation (to pay), debt; inviolability, protection for life and limb; protection, guarantee, security; conscience; rebuke, disapproval
There is no literal English translation. I tried to fix this, but was reverted.
88.75.8.48 ( talk) 01:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Adding the discrimination category and side-bar implies that "Dhimmitude" is real. But from the article we can see that Dhimmitude is at best a controversial concept and at worst a myth. We can't treat it as fact. VR talk 03:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
by the same logic there wasn't any racism in the United States, it's all in the past and can't be verified today and shouldn't be in Wikipedia. Nor is there any such thing as Islamophobia, it just happens that 90% of all terriorist are of the Islamic religion, again it can't be verified can it. Or does just publishing a book act as that verifiable fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.79.224.1 ( talk) 02:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
why ist this in the "regressive left" category? Who's the one meant? Tibi, Gemayel, Yeor, Lewis? Please elaborate or delete 178.2.122.80 ( talk) 13:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)