Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:48, 25 September 2006

The name

I think the name of this project does not fit the contents. Criticism of religion and systematic bias against some religious movements is not or hardly related to freedom of religion. Why not re-name it into Wikiproject:countering systematic bias in religion Andries 17:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I was in the process of saying almost the exact same thing, and in fact hit an edit conflict with the above comment! But my idea is a bit more broad. I suggest that this project be changed to a simpler "Wikiproject: Religion" (which for some reason is not taken yet!), with the additional goals (1) improving Misplaced Pages's information on religion, (2) ensuring that significent religious views and aspects of subjects in articles are touched on when appropriate, and (3) when touching on topics that need information from religions in general, ensuring balance with relatively underrepresented major world religions (such as Hinduism and Sikhism).

I do think that these are important issues to address; but the name chosen seems unnecessarily confrontational. The issue, after all, isn't about whether or not people have freedom of religion on Misplaced Pages, but about how we should best approach religious topics to create a good encyclopedia. Aquillion 17:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

This project is more focused than just being about religion in general. But I am open to other suggestions. --goethean ॐ 18:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

What is it focused on beyond religion in general? -Willmcw 20:38, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Freedom of religion is POV, if it stresses the rights of churches and neglects the rights of individuals: Example: Does the Catholic Church have the right to teach Mary's bodily assumption to heaven? Does the Catholic Church have the right to demand that every member personally believes this is true? Does the Catholic Church have the right to practice sanctions on members who don't believe it? Does the Catholic Church have the right to practice sanctions on Catholics who teach something different? "Classical" controversies regarding these questions are the cases of theologians Hans Küng and Uta Ranke-Heinemann vs the former Cardinal Ratzinger - to take a real-world non-cult example.

In such a conflict of freedom of religion (freedom of the group) and freedom of belief (freedom of the individual) there are advocates on both sides who value one of those two rights higher than the other. And there are additional parties which stress freedom of speech which is also a basic human right (e.g. non-Catholics commenting critically on the Catholic view in the Küng or Ranke-Heinemann case - which now amounts to directly critizing the head of the Catholic church).

The same values play a decisive role in most conflicts "cult defenders - cult opposition" and also in the political conflict between US and European countries regarding freedom of religion (not my personal research, I can give you references, if requested).

While most Wikipedians will (and should) have their personal values regarding freedom of speech, freedom of belief and freedom of religion, none of these values should be given preference in any Misplaced Pages article. And that's why I strongly feel that this project should be renamed. --Irmgard 07:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

We are not asking that articles be given preference. WP:NPOV is non-negotiable. You are welcome to start a different wikiproject, if you wish. This wikiproject is designed to ensure that religion-related articles are edited within NPOV and without an anti-religious bias. --ZappaZ 01:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Take care, Zappaz, I, for one, sure have no anti-religious bias: I'm a convinced Evangelical Christian (theologically Arminian type, culturally European type) - and I am aware that that's by far not the only point from which to view religious matters. I am also in favor of freedom of religion - but I take my definition not from the American constitution but from article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." This article, like the other 29, stresses the rights and freedoms of the individual person. And I strongly oppose any limitation of these rights and freedoms of the individual person which are "subject to limitations ... solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedom of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order, and the general welfare in a democratic society. " (Article 29). --Irmgard 13:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Irmgard, statement "Freedom of religion is POV", is exactly why this wikiprojectwas created. Freedom of belief/religion/conscience is one of the basic rights of a person. Misplaced Pages, as a global encyclopedia, needs to ensure that its articles are devoided on an anti-religious bias, and that these articles conform to the NOPV policy. --ZappaZ 01:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

ZappaZ, I think it is important for us to ensure that there is an overall balance in the depiction of religion on articles. Many Wikipedians are not religious; this can lead to a neglect for religious aspects of many topics. Likewise, since religion is so important to many people, it can lead them to overstep the bounds of encyclopedic writing when defending their views. Worst of all, most of the religious people on Misplaced Pages seem to be Western Judeo-Christian faith; when religion is touched upon, this tends to slant it towards those faiths and away from many other major world faiths. Those are, I think, the most important issues biasing religious topics on Misplaced Pages at the moment; clearly, the only way to address them neutrally is to assemble a group of people from all parts of the religious spectrum. Therefore, I hope that Irmgard and Willmcw (as the only other people who have expressed interest in this project) will join with that goal in mind. Aquillion 06:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

" statement 'Freedom of religion is POV', is exactly why this wikiprojectwas created." Well, yes, I'm sure that that's true. It doesn't make a terribly convincing indictment of the statement, however, or a very clear case for the WikiProject. When "freedom of religion" is used as a justification for practices that rob others of their freedoms, it is POV; that is a point that has been saliently made and which you have failed to answer. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I request an immediate name change

I request an immediate name change. For example to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countering systematic bias in religion. I consider the current name incorrect and offensive. Reasons are

1. (too much) criticism in Misplaced Pages of certain religious movements has nothing to do with freedom of religion.
2. the to-do list contains quite a large number of articles that I edited, but I never impeded anyone's religion

You can also rename it into Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Freedom from criticisms of religion because that title is more in correspondence with the current to-do list.

Andries 12:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

What say you? Is it possible? and if so how?

Given that my RfA nomination is going south and sinking fast, I would like to as editors a few questions:

1. DO you think it is possible to develop NPOV articles related to religion in WP in with editors that have extremely opposed views, without animosity, personal attacks and ill-will?
2. Of the articles that many of you have edited, do you think that these articles are better of or worse of after interactions between editors with opposed/polarized POVs?
3. Take an article that we have edited together as ask yourself: What would have been the shape of that article if any of us had complete control of that article and no opposed POV to counteract our bias?
4. What would be the three things that you would propose to make WP a more pleasant environment to discuss and edit articles in which you have strong POVs and you know that others have opposing POVs?

Your comments below, would be appreciated. --ZappaZ 18:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not in this project, but I'm glad there is such a project. Plus you haven't gotten any responses so I'll be nice and respond.

1: Anything is possible. The question is a tad difficult to answer though in that Misplaced Pages articles can change all the time or new people can enter who'd be offended. There are several small religions I started articles on before I signed up, but they have gathered no controversy so far. However I don't think that's because I'm so great at this. I think it's because no one in those religions, or who knows their members, has signed up. If a former member of Chen Tao, or a group slightly more likely, shows up they might be rather annoyed. Likewise there are larger religious groups in West Africa or Brazil that I did articles on, but that have not caused controversy. Again I'd guess that's because relatively few English speaking Brazilians or West Africans are at the English Wiki. (Especially as in one case I was using a translation of an article deemed NPOV at a non-English Wiki) If Brazilians or Nigerians gain far better representation here I'd assume some of my earlier efforts at writing about their NRMs will be deemed POV in some respect.

Which leads to another issue. The religions articles that will cause the most dispute I think will generally not be the most slanted articles. Instead I think they'll be, and are, the articles of religions that garnered the most media attention in the English speaking world. Hence "The Children of God", a group I'd barely heard of before, gets a good deal of attention at Wiki as some of their members were famous actors or musicians. I think that's likely unavoidable, but it is occasionally irritating. While a large African religion could likely be deemed "a dangerous cult", even if it's fairly mainstream, without getting much attention for awhile.

2: Some are better, some are worse. Some get better and then get worse. I think I've seen improvement more often then I've seen articles get worse though.

3: I have religious articles that have basically, so far, been "mine." Several in fact. The list of convicted or indicted religious leaders grew out of my former efforts at the, rightfully deleted(and not created by me) "list of controversial religious leaders." So far I think I'm the only one to do anything on the "convicted/indicted" deal. The List of Church of Christ Scientists arose out of something I read at the List of Christian scientists. They are just lists, but I also was the lone figure on Chen Tao as mentioned. I have tried to be fair or neutral when possible. Still I think "going it alone" has hazzarded a certain temptation to define things based on potentially arbitrary or whimsical ideas. In general some oversight is good in writing non-fiction and I'm used to that even in an academic setting.

I have no idea on 4.--T. Anthony 11:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Ironically both List of Church of Christ Scientists and List of Christian scientists were put on AfD. Although the first one may survive the second is dead. It just looks blue because I made it into a redirect for List of avowed Christians in science(now called List of Christian thinkers in science) which is a similar, but far more strictly structured list, which survived an AfD vote as no concensus. List of convicted or indicted religious leaders seems to be as safe, and ignored, as ever.--T. Anthony 06:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Just signed up

I seem to be spending more and more time on Misplaced Pages defending NPOV especially against the so called Skeptical position. It seems that many think NPOV is wrong or simply do not understand what the concept really means. So I support your project wholeheartedly. - Solar 18:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

To answer some of the questions by Zappaz

I think that we should stop writing articles based on generalizations, e.g. that groups that are called cults are bad, and that apostates are unreliable. Also please stop writing that in the talk pages because it makes editors like myself very angry. Andries 16:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion on "Related articles" list

When I saw the "Related articles" list, I expected to find NPOV tags on the articles when I viewed them. However, only a few of them actually did. I didn't look at history pages, so maybe the others were resolved and this list is out of date...or maybe this is a "potentially" POV list. In any case, the reasons for membership on the list are unclear. I added some subheadings and a "See also" link to get the ball rolling. I'm particularly interested in getting articles out from under the "Other, no tags" sublist.

In addition, some of these articles might be good candidates for adding to the {{Spirituality tasks}} template. (A few already are on the template.) — Richard_RDF 04:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Fiery Furnace

I'd like to try to clean up and improve the pages about the story of the fiery furnace. The story of the fiery furnance has a lot of importance in the Jewish and Christian traditions, and had has a lot of cultural impact; Misplaced Pages ought to have better information about it. I've started by poking at the pages and suggesting some merges; I'd appreciate any help from project members on whatever relating to this subject, but specifically (since this is your project) to avoid sectarian bias in the articles. Please leave any comments on the talk page of fiery furnace. Thanks! -- Tetraminoe 13:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Improvement drive

Meditation is currently nominated on WP:IDRIVE. If you want to see it improved and could help us bring it up to featured standard, please vote for it here! --Fenice 08:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Comparative Religions Template

Please visit this template I'm working on to go at the bottom of all of the major religious pages as a way to facilitate comparative religion research. Leave your comments on its talk page. Thanks! --Mareino 01:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

More on Systematic Bias

I've started or participated in all kinds of religion pages by now. Some are pretty good, others so-so, and some I despair of ever being ready for prime time. Let me run down some of my experiences and see what you think.

• Burkhanism, an Altaian NRM. I'm apparently the only substantive editor, though I have asked a couple of specialists to look it over. On the other hand, it is admittedly very obscure. A big problem is that most of the research is in Russian, which I don't speak.

• Sky Kingdom, a Malaysian NRM. Messy but basically informative. The biggest problem has been vandalism--i.e. Malay Muslims (I surmise) getting pissed off at the founder's claim (maybe) to be God, and venting their frustration through the article itself.

• Subud, a Javanese NRM. The big problem as I see it, is that many Subudians object to what outsiders would consider informative descriptions. For instance, most Subudians believe in a septegenary cosmos (it's in their symbol, for Bob's sake) but somebody erased an explanation of it on the grounds that Subudians don't have to believe anything, have no beliefs, just take everything directly from God, etc.. This is one example of an ongoing pattern which makes me reluctant to put too much time into this.

• Baha'i Faith, Babism, and about 100 related articles. Same problem, more or less, except the Baha'is move more in lockstep, regularly patroling these sites and changing anything they disagree with. Yes, I realize that's kind of the idea of Misplaced Pages, but Baha'is have some contentious beliefs about a number of things which outsider's can't very well compensate for, because the subjects are so obscure. One informative controvery has been over what sort of sources are legitimate. Much information about Baha'i dissidents and exes is available only on personal websites, stuff like that, which our Baha'i wikipedians claim are always illegitimate sources (except, apparently, when reprinted as books). Whenever the views of such "heretics" are introduced onto Baha'i sites, the Baha'is make them disappear. What to do?

• Jesus. For somebody so famous, his Misplaced Pages entry sure is a mess. The problem as I see it is that everybody in the world has an opinion about the J-Man, and Misplaced Pages doesn't care that most of these are painfully uninformed. (Christianity is a lot better, by the way.)

• Dorje Shugden, a Tibetan Buddhist entity. Some say he's an angel, others a devil. Oddly enough, that's not the main problem with the page, as the two camps seem to have come to an understanding. The problem is weird, undefended historical takes, like the guy who insists that Shugden comes from Shakya rather than Gelug tradition, and has apparently devoted his life to making sure that this interpretation prevails on the site.

Alas, if only everyone could be as virtuous as I, then they too might radiate wisdom and serenity even as I do! Seriously, are these inherent problems with the Wiki format? If so, I notice the Islamic and Jewish entries seem to have kept a generally high quality, and the Buddhists aren't so shabby either... Dawud 13:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Methinks they are inherent to the extent that there will always be people with a religious axe to grind. Its up to us in this project to counter such efforts to the extent of our ability and willingness to do so. Sympathies. --Smithfarm 16:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Problem: Is this problem against bias, or just against NEGATIVE bias?

To quote this Project's third goal: "To alert members to articles that are biased or that exhibit prejudice against religion or spirituality". Would there be any problem with changing this to "To alert members to articles that are biased or that exhibit prejudice for or against religion or spirituality"? Small differences like this are what will determine whether I join this WikiProject and try to help it in its goals, or whether I oppose it as a force for bias in itself. Positive and negative prejudices are equally harmful to Misplaced Pages's interests. -Silence 06:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Since no one has responded, I decided to be bold and change it. Looking at your contribution history, I definitely think you should join us! --J. J. 15:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see Silence's comment. My interactions with him/her have been fruitless anyways. I believe that there is widespread and unchecked systemic bias against religious belief on Misplaced Pages. This project was intended to correct that. Thus I believe that the change is unnecessary. — goethean ॐ 16:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Interesting. RockOfVictory/J.J., thank you for trying, but it sounds like my worries are not entirely misplaced despite your alteration, if the project's founder feels that it is more important to alleviate anti-religious bias than pro-religious bias. If you want my assistance in any religion-related article, feel free to ask anytime, as one of my greatest interests is religion-related topics, but I don't think I can formally join this project at this time, considering its current set of weighted priorities. Regardless, good luck to you all in helping improve Misplaced Pages's NPOV treatment of religious topics. -Silence 17:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• The voice of the founding member is only one voice among many. I've been largely inactive here anyways. Although I must say that I find the idea of systemic pro-religious bias in Misplaced Pages laughable. — goethean ॐ 17:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If you insist on laughing at the very idea instead of taking it seriously, it strongly suggests that Misplaced Pages does have a systemic pro-religious bias, of which you are a part. At the very least, it suggests that if there is a systemic pro-religious bias on Misplaced Pages, you would be the last one to know of its existence. -- Antaeus Feldspar

I don't see how that follows. Given my experience here, the idea of pro-religious systemic bias is indeed laughable, since the majority of Wikipedians with whom I have come into contact seem to be dismissive or positively antagonistic towards religious and spiritual perspectives. There are probably a few articles that contain pro-religious bias, but my experience is that Misplaced Pages's systemic bias is clearly against religion and spirituality. — goethean ॐ 15:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

And your experience is, of course, all that matters. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

In Category:Wikipedians by religion atheism is usually more common than Catholicism, Islam, and Hinduism combined. That might not say much to you, but atheism at best represents 10% of the world whereas those three faiths represent almost half the world by some estimates. The bias here is usually non-religious although I have seen intense advocates for small(under 50,000 members) or new religions at Misplaced Pages. And there are persistently biased people for larger faiths as well. Still they're usually outnumbered by atheists and antitheists. Considering this place was founded by an Objectivist I think an anti-religious bias would be plausible. (Ayn Rand having no patience for religions)--T. Anthony 22:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

My point is that by far the easiest and fairest thing to do would be to address all forms of bias. Not just some. Bias against new religions, bias against old religions, bias against mainstream religions, bias against obscure religions, bias against no religion. When someone is asked if he thinks all religious bias should be opposed and his response amounts to 'only some religious biases are worthy of being addressed', I don't know what it says to you but I sure know what it says to me. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

There's hardly a requisite for such hostility; that goethean expressed his view on the issue does not of necessity imply any imposition of supremacy and perspectival ultimacy on his part as you would seem to have it. Let's make the attempt to be sensible on such sensitive issues—and not so keen to make (mis-)calculations as regards others' intentions, which is itself nonsensical in toto. The matter must be as clear as possible if any suitable action or deliberation is to be undertaken: grossly hypothecating in general terms is not the manner in which this is to be accomplished, let alone approached. — _scripta 03:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Christianity

Would anyone care to look over Christianity, Criticism of Christianity, Evangelism, Jesus and Jesus-Myth? A website critical of Misplaced Pages has been charging that these articles are biased. Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated. Thanking you in advance, Arch O. La 04:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Latest in biblical terminology

In the Judaism WikiProject's Jewish vs. Christian section, the following issue is mentioned: Usage of words such as "Old Testament" and "New Testament" in articles. I know that this is a very controversial topic, but definitely one that we can come up with a plan for. Before making any major changes across WP, though, who is versed in the latest practices in terminology? The SBL Handbook (1999, ISBN 156563487X, 900 KB PDF) mentions (in section 4.3):

• The Handbook of Nonsexist Writing (2nd ed. 1988, ISBN 0060962380) and
• Guidelines for Bias-Free Writing (1995, ISBN 0253209412). What sources do you use? Are there more up-to-date sources? --J. J. 15:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I just got an e-mail back from the Editorial Director of SBL. While he didn't have an updated list of antibias works (e.g. "New Testament" or "CSV"), he did mention these additional resources:

• Grammar and Gender (1986, ISBN 0300035268) and
• Talking About People (Maggio 1997, ISBN 1573560693). An Amazon review for this adds: Herbst concentrates on racial and ethnic bias in language, while Maggio thoroughly covers sex and gender bias. Herbst is more descriptive, Maggio prescriptive, and Herbst provides more social and historical detail for the entries...
• The Color of Words (Herbst 1997, ISBN 1877864420).

--J. J. 15:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Christian views coloring writing about Judaism

See this diff. It's so deeply-ingrained in Western/Christian minds that Torah means "Law", that that language has sat in that article (and, I have no doubt, elsewhere) w/o a word raised in challenge... Tomer 20:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well... I do believe that "Torah" can also mean "law," (or "code") as in "Torat Kohanim," "Torat Hayoledet," "Torat Hametzora," etc. Having grown up in an Orthodox/Modern Orthodox community, calling the Mishna the "Oral Law" seems quite natural to me... I believe that even Artscroll, that bastion of Orthodox Jewish thought, translates it that way. I'm sure that there are issues on which Christianity has certain misconceptions about Judaism, but is this really one of them? --Eliyak 03:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually I didn't have any specific view of what the word "Torah" means. If I'd guessed I would have said "teaching" or "book", but neither theory was strong enough to be deeply engrained in me. Then again I grew up in small-town Midwest where the nearest synagogue is over an hour's drive away.--T. Anthony 05:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Torah as "law" is a common Christian view--that it is readily translated by Jews as such is a result of Christian influence, not a reflection of Jewish philosophy. The "bias" comes in with Christianity's teaching that Judaism's God is a heavy-handed big-fisted meanie while Christianity's God is a lovey-dovey cuddly teddy bear, a philosophy which finds basis in Christian mistranslation of the very foundational book of Judaism, the Torah. Also, I think you'll find that, while many people appreciate Artscroll's copious publishing efforts, that they are hardly regarded as a bastion of Orthodoxy, rather as a bastion of one small but very prolific school of very Ashkenazi Orthodoxy, and despite the fact that you can buy Artscroll pretty much anywhere, and the fact that practically every observant Jewish household has at least one volume published by them, that they are widely criticized, including by people like me who have at least 50 volumes emblazoned with "Artscroll". Tomer 23:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

RCC vs. CC

There is an ongoing discussion regarding the naming of the Catholic Church (in communion with Rome) over at Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Name. I was wondering if editors of this project wouldn't mind weighing in to see if pushing the R-word is biased on the part of prots, or if claiming the word "catholic" is biased on the part of Catholics. Maybe this issue isn't a matter of religious bias, but having more editors join the discussion is always helpful. Thanks for your consideration.--Andrew c 14:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

For a treatment of the issue based on WP naming conventions and policies you may want to follow this link: CC vs. RCC Vaquero100 01:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Dispensationalism

is an appalling article, and I don't even know where to begin w/ fixing it... what made me come here specifically was the section about messianic Judaism, which begins with a disclaimer completely with vanity links and the like, and thereafter sinks into a massively POV discussion of stuff about which I know too little to comment authoritatively... Tomer 23:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Dhimmi

I'd be very grateful if one or more people from this project could cast an eye on the above article. Big POV dispute going round in circles. I'm too involved now to see the wood for the trees. In particular, discussion is stalled on the standing of the writer known as "Bat Ye'or" as a major source for the article. Itsmejudith 21:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

A child project for Hinduism

Per Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:AMbroodEY/Fundy Watch, I am creating a child project to counter systemic bias in articles related to Hinduism. --→Talk 11:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

i would like to be a part of this project Babub. nids 05:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

As would I.Netaji 20:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Me tooBakaman _Bakatalk 21:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

ACIM

It seems this is a contentious article, but I think A Course in Miracles could use the attention of this wiki project. Not a dog 14:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Jews for Jesus and Template:Christianity

There has been a BIG debate raging over whether or not to use the Christianity template in the Jews for Jesus article.

Everyone agrees that JfJ is theologically Christian. The debate is over whether or not the template is appropriate for such a small organization. Arch O. La 04:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

On the other side of the debate are users who want the Christianity template up in any case, just to make it really clear that "Jews" for Jesus (an intentionally misleading name) is a Christian organization. --Eliyak T·C 17:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Book banning on Misplaced Pages?

Two users (User:Hornplease and User:Lkadvani) are advocating that the works of Koenraad Elst should be banned on wikipedia:

• However, I have an objection to this edit. Note that is still unresolved. I thought that you had agreed to hold off on discussion of Dr. Elst for a while. To go ahead and make additional citations of his material seems to be a violation of an agreement in good faith. Please do consider this and find an alternative citation. Thanks. Hornplease 05:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC) We can resume it, but in the meantime I will ask you to return to the status quo ante and not cite him any further, and to remove any citations that you have added since the discussion went on hold - which was done at your request.Hornplease 07:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• "I am trying to contact him and have contacted some of his associates to that effect. Please suspend discussion on this topic and monitor the users who are trying to defame him until I can get him to respond, either directly or through me."23:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC) No problem. Discussion can be suspended, and I will monitor the use of his name. Please, however, it would be best if when you approached Dr. Elst or his associates, you did not say that he was being 'defamed', but stated the problem as blandly as possible. Misplaced Pages does not need legal problems.23:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Hornplease compares Elst, who has repeatedly written against anti-semitism and nazism, with David Irving.

• He agreed to hold off on quoting Elst till Elst could respond to this "defamation". He went ageand and added this source anyway. User:Hornplease 09:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• From Lkadvani's talk page:

• Big..No..No ..

Censorship?

• Hornplease also claims that Aditya Prakashan, Voice of India, Rupa Publishing, Transaction Publishers, Har-Anand Pub. South Asia Books, World Archaeological Congress, Peeters and the other publishing houses that have published works or papers by Elst are "non-academic presses". He even claims that "Routledge India is not really academic, unlike Routledge UK." I find this extremely culturally insensitive, and somehow this strongly reminds of the cultural chauvinism of the British Empire, where people like Macaulay said: "I have never found one among them who could deny that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia." Does Hornplease really want to say that Aditya, VOI, Rupa, and the other publishing houses have not published any academic works? Or that Indian scholarly publications are just "sub-academic", as with the "not really academic" Routledge India? Many of Elst's works are about Indian politics and contemporary issues and conflicts of Hinduism and were published in India. His works are widely known and have been referred to by scholars like Islam expert Bat Ye'or, Indologist Edwin Bryant, Savitri Devi expert Christian Bouchet, to name just a few. He might not be exactly "academic mainstream", but many other scholars often quoted in wikipedia are not either, for example Bat Ye'or, Ibn Warraq, Robert Spencer, Andrew Bostom and Srđa Trifković, who don't have a Ph.D. in Islamic studies or are otherwise not mainstream, but are quoted often in wikipedia.

If these individuals are quoted, someone more knowledgeable than I should seek alternative quotes. As I have said in the context of Dr. Elst, if a sentence in an article is interpretative and rests solely on the analysis of Dr. Elst, and no alternative citations can be found, the argument that that sentence forms part of is in serious trouble. This probably applies to the other individuals listed above.

About the Indian publishing houses, I have not included the established Indian academic presses such as Oxford University Press India, Cambridge University Pres India, Orient Longman, Tata McGraw Hill, and Viking India. A cursory comparison of Routledge India's list to Routledge UK's list will be instructive. Hornplease 05:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• If certain inconvenient scholars are to be banned, maybe they should be listed on Misplaced Pages:List of books banned on wikipedia? If Elst is banned today on wikipedia, who will be next? This is just to silence all criticism of for example the Indian Marxist (sometimes anti-Hindu) point of view, the censoring of all disagreeable views and to censor the Hindu point of view. Elst is in certain topics among the most important scholars on the Hindu and/or objective point of view, and the banning of his works is just trying to introduce or keep systematic bias in wikipedia.

• I certainly agree some quotes are just not appropriate for an article, and that Elst was misquoted in some articles. But the entire tone of Hornplease's and Lkadvani's discussions shows more an inclination towards censorship and systematic bias, than an interest in neutrality, balance and reason.--Bondego 12:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Treating an author with caution as a source is not the same as "banning them from wikipedia". Elst's views are notable enough for him to have his own article. He has a doctorate but it seems he does not hold an academic post and he does not regularly publish peer reviewed articles. It is clear that he writes from a standpoint that is not middle of the road. He's fully entitled to do that but wikipedia's NPOV policy means that if he is cited his views should be balanced with those of other authors. Itsmejudith 22:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, I agree that every author used in wikipedia should be treated with caution. However, reading through the comments made by Lkadvani and Hornplease, they show more an inclination towards "banning them from wikipedia", than about "treating works with caution". How do you know that he doesn't regularly publishes peer reviewed articles, and can you show me evidence that it is an established practice for scholars writing about contemporary Indian politics and religious conflicts and who publish in India to publish peer reviewed books and/or articles? In any case, his books are referred to or discussed by other scholars in various fields. There are many scholars that are not mainstream or who do not write from a standpoint in the middle of the road, but are nevertheless cited often in wikipedia. I agree that if he is cited his views should be balanced with those of other authors. --Bondego 23:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

This is the single most patronising remark I have read on Misplaced Pages. India has had a long list of scholars who have published peer-reviewed books and articles. They are, unfortunatly, unpopular with certain strands of political thought that in general believe that Western scholarship is irremediably slanted against Indian sensitivities. On contemporary Indian politics and religious conflicts I refer the writer, who has clearly not so much as bothered to check the first few results of a google scholar search, to Romila Thapar, Sunil Khilnani, Ashutosh Varshney, Atul Kohli, Ashis Nandy, Mushirul Hasan, Sumit Sarkar, Tanika Srkar, Bipin Chandra, Sumit Ganguly, Yogendra Yadav, Sumantra Bose, Dharma Kumar and Sudipta Kaviraj. All these individuals, most of whom are still active, have published multiple peer-reviewed articles and books, are tenured at major universities in India and abroad and have studied in India and through the Indian educational system. I add that this is a list that I have come up with off the top of my head. A little rooting around the faculties of major Indian, American, English and European universities will produce a few dozen more. Hornplease 05:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a strong objection to taking out the works of Koenraad Elst simply because he sympathizes with Hindus. Many authors around the world sympthaize with different groups, we don't attack them because of that. He has been extremely useful on one page that I've been working on (Out of India theory) and has been accepted by all editors on that article to be a suitable source who talks of the theory with some sanity and without the propaganda. One cannot place restrictions on citing an author simply because he sympathizes with Hindutva. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It might be incorrect to say that he sympathizes with Hindutva. Read for example this article. --Bondego 23:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

From which link comes the revealing quote "Rest assured that in Hindutva circles, many people count as far more important than I." Hornplease 05:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

About balance, may I quote what I have written elsewhere:

This is not censorship or systemic bias. This is ensuring that the discussion of difficult subjects is undertaken with the benefit of citation from scholars who have endured the oversight of their peers and have demonstrated their accomplishments sufficiently rigorously. I have also stated that if Dr. Elst is quoted specifically as someone familiar with the internal dynamics of the Hindu revivalist movement and in articles where that knowledge is relevant, then I have no objection.

I take strong objection to Bondego's comments and in particular his use of the word 'banning' in the title. I do not wish to speak of the other editor involved, but I fail to see a single instance when any but a deliberate misreading of my edits can suggest a desire to 'ban' a source, and not a desire to improve the encyclopaedia by opening it to the best possible sources.

Hornplease 05:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)