Revision as of 14:56, 14 October 2021 editWikiDan61 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers103,047 edits →Survey: Where is the Doug Weller discussion?← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:57, 14 October 2021 edit undoWikiDan61 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers103,047 editsm →Survey: Fix reply templateNext edit → | ||
Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
:Just recently ] I was concerned about availability of encyclopedic space for Sufi shrines. In case of Sufi's most are considered peaceful still few of them have not been so peaceful, on the other side there are many instances where in some ideologically extremist Muslims have violently attacked Sufi saints and shrines. Whether encyclopedia shall not be allowed to take due note of them in spite of availability sources? Hiding of info would not be fair to neutrality of encyclopedia. ] (]) 09:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC) | :Just recently ] I was concerned about availability of encyclopedic space for Sufi shrines. In case of Sufi's most are considered peaceful still few of them have not been so peaceful, on the other side there are many instances where in some ideologically extremist Muslims have violently attacked Sufi saints and shrines. Whether encyclopedia shall not be allowed to take due note of them in spite of availability sources? Hiding of info would not be fair to neutrality of encyclopedia. ] (]) 09:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC) | ||
*'''Comment''' in order to determine whether the section should stay, and how long it should be, we need to consider how much weight it is given by reliable sources that cover the topic "Islam in Finland" ''broadly''. This probably means looking at books, book chapters, other encyclopedic entries etc. I had a similar discussion with {{u|Doug Weller}} . I'm now researching this and will get back, and I will report my findings in a section below.''']''' <sub>]</sub> 14:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC) | *'''Comment''' in order to determine whether the section should stay, and how long it should be, we need to consider how much weight it is given by reliable sources that cover the topic "Islam in Finland" ''broadly''. This probably means looking at books, book chapters, other encyclopedic entries etc. I had a similar discussion with {{u|Doug Weller}} . I'm now researching this and will get back, and I will report my findings in a section below.''']''' <sub>]</sub> 14:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC) | ||
** {{reply|Vice |
** {{reply|Vice regent}} When you say you had a similar discussion with Doug Weller "here", you've linked to a website about the book ''Islam in the Nordic and Baltic Countries''. Can you instead link to the discussion you had with Doug Weller? ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 14:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC) | ||
===Comments=== | ===Comments=== |
Revision as of 14:57, 14 October 2021
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
A few issues with this page
I know Misplaced Pages needs reliable sources so I'm not going to edit the page as I don't know any, and judging by the at many parts, neither does anyone else... However, I know for a fact that there are absolutely many more than 50,000-60,000 Muslims in Finland. Another inaccuracy is the time that the first Muslims arrived in Finland. What the page currently refers to is the mass immigration of Muslim-majority ethnic groups to Finland's modern borders, and that is an understandable mistake, however even that is inaccurate as there were already relatively many Tatars since the early 13th century when they fled from the Mongols; this is also an understandable mistake because they were apparently not explicitly called Tatars. Also remember that the Mongol Empire expanded to parts of what is now Karelia and other western parts of Russia, where some ethnic Finns lived at that time, and this influenced some to convert to Islam. It isn't widely remembered or even recognised that this happened because of four reasons: the Swedish elite of Finland that came from the west shortly before and continued to come at the same time with the Tatars and Mongols, did not approve of Islam. The Finnish and Karelian Muslims were also shunned by both the Christian and paganistic/shamanistic Finns and Karelians, so many of them lived in separate villages. The third reason is the second world war, when the Finnish army brought concentration camps in Karelia many Muslims were camped as well; some because "they side with Russia" and others because they refused to participate in the war. The fourth reason is maybe the most important, that all the mosques in Karelia were also demolished. Of course the government won't admit they persecuted for their religion, they just say they sided with Russia and get away with it... I'm sure records of the persecutions were kept but they are probably destroyed or lost in bottomless archives no one will find in decades, same way it has happened already before with other persecutions and the executions of civilians etc.
It isn't my intention to make Finland sound like an Islamophobic country, I'm a Muslim myself and have had less of that than I have had in other countries on vacations, but saying Finland has only had Muslims since recently is misleading and inaccurate. The reason there has to be more than 50,000-60,000 is that it is only the official statistic of people who are registered as Muslims, in addition it is only the number of such officially registered Sunni Muslims when the largest official organisations are Sunni. There also are Muslims that converted straight from paganism/shamanism that the Swedish Christian elite never recognised and most of these remain even in this day as Christian on paper, when the parents either baptise their kids to fit in. Increasingly more often people are officially "irreligious", many who convert to Islam from Christianity simply resign from the church and are officially atheists, especially Shites. I was always a Shite, so are my parents, etc. but all without religion on paper, there is nothing to gain from registering the religion when there isn't even a proper way to do it. In polls that ask what religion you are, they most often do not have Islam as even an option or they have Sunnism by default, too. There are small Muslim-majority towns, whose ancestors converted to Islam from paganism/shamanism and they still incorporate some elements of the paganistic/shamanistic past religion, so they are thus not recognised as Muslims by officials.
Consider all that and count the statistics that there are more people that believe in God than there are people who would proportionally believe, meaning some atheists believe in God and of course that isn't true, and there must be at least 200,000 Muslims. This number also grows because of immigration and refugees, and even though people say it's racist to say that Somali immigrants have kids at the rabbit's pace, it's true. Some other Africans do too, there are even starting to be actual black ghettos in some parts of Helsinki, and most are Muslims. Then, think of how many white Finnish women marry black Muslim men and become automatically converted. AliHautala (talk) 10:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Islam in Finland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101005103538/http://evl.fi/EVLen.nsf/Documents/EA1D4764D54DB72DC225730F00228C15?OpenDocument&lang=EN to http://evl.fi/EVLen.nsf/Documents/EA1D4764D54DB72DC225730F00228C15?openDocument&lang=EN
- Added
{{dead link}}
tag to http://pxweb2.stat.fi/Dialog/varval.asp?ma=030_vaerak_tau_102_en&ti=Language+according+to+age+and+gender+by+region+1990+-+2009&path=..%2FDatabase%2FStatFin%2Fvrm%2Fvaerak%2F&lang=1&multilang=en - Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927185716/http://www.logosmedia.fi/artikkeliarkisto/islamsuomessa.html to http://www.logosmedia.fi/artikkeliarkisto/islamsuomessa.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Terrorism and radicalisation
I would argue that the Terrorism and radicalisation section does not belong in this article, because it implies (in violation of neutrality) that these elements are a natural part of Islam. There is not a terrorism section in Christianity in the United States even though Christian-motivated terrorism is a thing, nor is there even a terrorism section in Islam in the United States, because terrorism is not an inherent part of Islam. We could create a section in Islamic terrorism regarding terrorist acts in Finland, but we should not have the section here.
I am pinging several users who have recently been involved in either removing or restoring this content to enter this discussion:
- @Shelley Crescent:
- @Uranium Site:
- @Ifnord:
- @Dr.Pinsky:
- @Naufal khairullah8:
- @1Kwords:
-- WikiDan61ReadMe!! 15:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- I would absolutely agree that there is a extremist/terrorist ideology attached to most religions, and I suspect there is not a terrorism section in Christianity in the United States because you would have difficulty obtaining consensus to add it as many adherents (being a large chunk of the editors on the English wiki) would be opposed. That the events in Finland are so closely related to Islamic terrorism, and that the majority of those tracked by Finnish internal are adherents, seem to be notable - and referenced. Ifnord (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Ifnord: There is no doubt that the events are notable, and therefore worthy of inclusion at the Islamic terrorism article, but to include them in the article titled "Islam in Finland" makes the implicit statement that "terrorism is a part of Islam, and therefore must be covered in the Islam in ..." article. Neutrality demands that we do not make the judgement that terrorism is an inherent part of Islam, and therefore should not be included in this article. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 16:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- I would advocate adding language that mainstream Islamists would use, that it is a religion of peace and that terrorism and violence is against mainstream teaching. This would balance the neutrality while maintaining the content. Ifnord (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Ifnord: I feel that the very presence of the content, no matter how presented, implies that terrorism is a part of the religion. Clearly, Ifnord and I disagree on this issue. I'd like to wait for other voices to weigh in on the matter. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 16:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- I would advocate adding language that mainstream Islamists would use, that it is a religion of peace and that terrorism and violence is against mainstream teaching. This would balance the neutrality while maintaining the content. Ifnord (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Ifnord: There is no doubt that the events are notable, and therefore worthy of inclusion at the Islamic terrorism article, but to include them in the article titled "Islam in Finland" makes the implicit statement that "terrorism is a part of Islam, and therefore must be covered in the Islam in ..." article. Neutrality demands that we do not make the judgement that terrorism is an inherent part of Islam, and therefore should not be included in this article. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 16:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- Remove it, I agree with WikiDan61, I don't think that Islam's goal is terrorism and radicalization. Also as other users have pointed out every religion has some "terrorism" committed by a few outliers. Tepkunset (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:NOTFORUM, we cannot take what editors thinks about a topic into account. The topic of this debate what the sources say and they say that there has been radicalisation in Finland. Removing the material would not neutrally represent available sources. If there have been terrorist attacks motivated by other religions in Finland, please add them to the relevant article. A Thousand Words (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
RfC regarding the "Terrorism and radicalisation" section
|
Should the Islam in Finland#Terrorism and radicalisation section be retained? WikiDan61ReadMe!! 12:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Background
Please refer to the #Terrorism and radicalisation section above regarding the deletion or retention of this section. Given the failure of two editors (Ifnord and myself, WikiDan61), I am requesting input from the wider community. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 12:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Intimations sent
- Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Islam
- Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Finland
- Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Terrorism
- Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view since WP:DUE redirects there.
- Also pinging active users contributed to article Terrorism more than 4 percent content
- @Beland:
- @Tomwsulcer:
- @PBS:
Survey
- Oppose I oppose the retention of the section, for the reasons stated above, namely that it violates neutrality to include the section on this page as such an inclusion implies that terrorism is an inherent part of Islam. While the facts presented are not in dispute, their inclusion here is. I recommend that the section be moved into Islamic terrorism instead. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 12:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:NOTFORUM, we cannot take what editors think about a topic into account. The topic of this debate should be what the sources say and they say that there has been radicalisation in Finland. Removing the material would not neutrally represent available sources. If there have been terrorist attacks motivated by other religions in Finland, please add them to the relevant article. A Thousand Words (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep As such I have discussed more in detail in bellow comment section, but while writing here I recollect couple of parallel examples. No doubt, I do agree with above contention of to be true with sourced information and not to rely on personal perceptions of any ideology or incident. For example communism (or for that matter capitalism) is ideology of economics and ideologies of economics can succeed even without violence so one need not consider violence to be inherent to communism, what violence happened or suggested by any one are their personal actions so despite availability of sources and citations do not point out violence in communism related articles. can we draw a parallel? 2021 United States Capitol attack are no way inherent ideal of U.S. democracy but happened and duly noted in the article United States Capitol.
- Just recently in this discussion I was concerned about availability of encyclopedic space for Sufi shrines. In case of Sufi's most are considered peaceful still few of them have not been so peaceful, on the other side there are many instances where in some ideologically extremist Muslims have violently attacked Sufi saints and shrines. Whether encyclopedia shall not be allowed to take due note of them in spite of availability sources? Hiding of info would not be fair to neutrality of encyclopedia. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 09:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comment in order to determine whether the section should stay, and how long it should be, we need to consider how much weight it is given by reliable sources that cover the topic "Islam in Finland" broadly. This probably means looking at books, book chapters, other encyclopedic entries etc. I had a similar discussion with Doug Weller here. I'm now researching this and will get back, and I will report my findings in a section below.VR talk 14:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Vice regent: When you say you had a similar discussion with Doug Weller "here", you've linked to a website about the book Islam in the Nordic and Baltic Countries. Can you instead link to the discussion you had with Doug Weller? WikiDan61ReadMe!! 14:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Comments
- Curious to know if any previous discussions about inclusion of crime sections in related topic article.
- Recently I had done a survey about mentions about notable crimes, it seems where editors cared enough those were mentioned. That is how my perception is. For example Catholic Church article lead includes sentence From the late 20th century, the Catholic Church has been criticised for its teachings on sexuality, its inability to ordain women, and its handling of sexual abuse cases involving clergy. But I did not find mention of most recent disclosures in article Catholic Church in France. What if any editor wishes to include recent disclosures in Catholic Church in France?
- What is neutrality a complete picture or an incomplete picture?
- Whether the article Trade should hide examples of ilicit trade ?
- Whether hiding of information helps the image or corrective actions help the image ?
- Last but not least, which are all religions approve of hiding truth? (read again)
- Whether encyclopedias are for hiding the truth or sweeping the facts under the carpet?
- I would note that I do not wish any information hidden, simply moved to the proper venue. I further note that:
- there is not a section on terrorism in the Islam in the United States or Islam in France articles, even though those countries have had far more incidents of terrorism by Muslims than Finland;
- there is not a section on terrorism in the Christianity in the United States article, even though there have been more acts of terrorism undertaken in the United States in the name of Christian ideology than in the name of Muslim ideology.
- The point is that, although people of different religions commit acts of terrorism in the name of their religions, we should not ascribe the terrorism to the religion. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 14:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Does this opinion adequately educates discussion participants about justification of violence using concept of Abrogation in Islam by certain extremist sections? Binary and hate against Kafir infidels?
- If a notable accident happens on the moon then that should be mentioned in article on accident but not in the article moon? And if it is mentioned in the article moon then demand removal of notable info and say we are just moving it to the article accident.?
- Article moon does have section on "In culture and life" why that should not be moved in article culture and keep the moon clean?
- Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Bookku: It does not demean the moon to state that an accident happened there. It does demean the religion of Islam to include the section on terrorism in the "Islam in Finland" article, because it implies that where there is Islam, there is terrorism. As for your first point about "adequately educating discussion participants..." I'm afraid I don't understand your point. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 14:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- a) Issue pertains to WP:DUE. So I intimated @ Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view since I do not consider myself as an expert on WP:DUE as it exists.
- b) The article Naskh (tafsir)#The Sword verse(s) (Abrogation in Islam) mentions sentence In modern times, the sword verse has been used by extremist groups and individuals to justify their killing of non-Muslims civilians, according to Lohay Fatoohi (although some dispute this), For details one will need to read Naskh (tafsir)#The Sword verse(s) with notes there in.
- c) The contested section Islam in Finland#Terrorism and radicalisation mentions word "Islamist terrorist" & not "Islamic". Usually word 'Islamist terrorist' is used for 'radical political Islam' and 'like other religions', Islam too has 'radical political' sections which have been time and again resorting to violence. Though personally I would prefer wordings 'extremist political Muslim' and 'Anti−Muslim−phobia' instead of Islamist and Islamophobia. (Interestingly people want to use word contested term 'Islamophobia' instead of more proper "Anti−Muslim phobia' but do not want term 'Islamist'? This I really do not get)
- Any ways so the contested section informs on terrorist sections does not target Muslims or Islam as a whole; (Personally I do not have any issue in adding such a note to that effect if MoS allows). If there are any peace overtures one can mention them. Does hiding the truth helps the image of community or religion ? I do not think so because any such efforts are perceived more negatively as 'so and so white washing', it neither helps nor adds up.
- About mentions in similar articles personally I am for mentions across rather than hiding.
- That is how personal opinion goes. The rest over to the experts in WP:DUE
- Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Bookku: Your argument appears to be that since there are Muslims that advocate violence, we should include here in Islam in Finland (and at every other "Islam in x" article) notes about the terrorist acts undertaken by Muslims in those countries. That, to me, is the very definition of non-neutrality, demeaning the entire religion for the acts of a few adherents. And your arguments over the semantics of "Islamist" versus "Islamic" are unsourced. Even a link to a Misplaced Pages discussion about such differences would be useful. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 15:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Wrong:..semantics of "Islamist" versus "Islamic" are unsourced..
- Google search to 'Define Islamist' returns "an advocate or supporter of Islamic militancy or fundamentalism." with reference to Oxford languages
- Collins gives general, British and American English definitions
- An Islamist is someone who believes strongly in Islamic ideas and laws
- British English: a supporter or advocate of Islamic fundamentalism
- American English:. an advocate or supporter of Islamic, esp. orthodox Islamic, political rule
- English Misplaced Pages Article Islamism lead "..Ideologies dubbed Islamist may advocate a 'revolutionary' strategy of Islamizing society through exercise of state power, or alternately a "reformist" strategy to re-Islamizing society through grassroots social and political activism. Islamists may emphasize the implementation of sharia, pan-Islamic political unity, the creation of Islamic states, or the outright removal of non-Muslim influences; particularly of Western or universal economic, military, political, social, or cultural nature in the Muslim world;...while others spawned "the most aggressive and ambitious Islamist militia" to date, such as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Same article section refers to law in France as ..After the murder of Paty, a bill was put forward to fight Islamist extremism and separatism to fight the roots of jihadist violence.. In this sentence it is neither referring to entire Islam nor referring to all Muslims but referring just to extremist only.(read again)
- The fact is as much (all) religions as much used for peaceful purposes are as much used for non peaceful purposes communities and ideologies and humanity need introspection and proactive action to improve the record and not hide the record. whichever respective communities whichever ideologies. running away from facts benefits none nor the encyclopedia nor the truth.
- Any ways only two people discussing is no good so we have adequately expressed , I wish to read now others so pl don't ping I wish to bow out for a while Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Just pointing out that WikiDan61 is wrong, there is indeed an Islam in France#Terrorist attacks in France section. A Thousand Words (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Although not relevant here due to WP:OTHERSTUFF, I have added a Catholic Church in France#Sexual abuse section. A Thousand Words (talk) 01:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)