Talk:Defamation of religion and the United Nations

Article title

Are we sure this is the correct title? It seems to me that blasphemy and religious defamation are quite different things. For example, if somebody were to assert the non-existence of all and any Gods then that would be blasphemy in the eyes of many religions but not defamation of any particular religion's followers. Conversely, if somebody was to suggest that followers of a certain religion were guilty of drinking the blood of the murdered children of another religion (to pick one of the blood libels as an example) then that would certainly be defamation of the adherents of that religion but not blasphemy. Blasphemy is aimed at the beliefs of the religion whereas religious defamation is aimed at the people who are the adherents of the religion. Religious defamation is an unjustified attack on a whole group of people, which is why it is becoming more widely criminalised and is seen as similar to racism, whereas blasphemy is increasingly being decriminalised as it interferes with legitimate discussion of religion and is often used to provide a single religion with protected status above other religions.

Unless the UN resolutions have anything to do with blasphemy (in its true sense of denying the beliefs of a religion) then I think we should rename the article to make it clear that it is about religious defamation. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Blasphemy and defamation of religion and insult to religion and religious vilification and religious stereotyping and hate speech are all terms that overlap on the idea of blasphemy. They are all terms that mean different things to different people. My aim in selecting the current title was to make it easy for the reader of Wikipedia to find the article. "Blasphemy" is a long-established concept, and the term is much more likely to be used as a search term than any of the other terms. Until a term such as "defamation of religion" becomes more definite in its meaning and more widely known, I think the present title should stay. PYRRHON  talk   18:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Do the UN generally use the term "blasphemy" when speaking about this subject? If they do then the title is OK as it is. If not, then the article should be renamed to match whatever term they most frequently use. Don't worry about people finding the article, the old title can be kept as a redirect so that they find their way to the new title. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "blasphemy" is the wrong word. This article is about discrimination against relgion, which is a different thing. Saying "Jesus Christ!" might be blashemy to some people but its not religious defermation and the UN would never try to stop "religious exclamations". McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I've renamed this article to Defamation of religions and the United Nations. We shouldn't use the term 'blasphemy' in the title when it's not used in these resolutions; to state that they were addressing 'blasphemy' would be POV. We should adhere to what the resolutions say they were about, which is 'defamation of religions'. Robofish (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite

Some time this weekend I'm probably going to gut the article and replace it with a stub that mentions the actual controversy surrounding Defamation of religion laws. This will not include this exhaustive list of motions, as none are presented as especially important to the topic in general. A more appropriate place would be perhaps List of United Nations resolutions concerning defamation of Religion. I think this will provide a better starting place for any editors who wish to expand the article. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

A rewrite of the lead section to better describe the article is always a good thing, but the gut seemed unnecessary. The article is about the topic of defamation of religions and the United Nations. The resolutions are how members are trying to address this topic and these resolutions receive extensive media coverage every year they are introduced because of the controversy. Omitting them entirely and just mentioning the most recent resolution with one sentence is too brief. The resolutions are very relevant and give (modern) context to the article.

I read the original article several months ago and saw it again the other day after you rewrote it. It seemed too brief compared to the more informative version before so I added back the resolutions from the older versions as a subsection. If the resolution subsection gets too long, a List of United Nations resolutions concerning defamation of Religion can be created, but don't just delete the resolution section and not create the list article. It's better to have too much information than too little. TimeClock871 (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for explaining that. I might just end up creating that article. It seems like the only objective way to deal with some of the POV issues here. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

AzureFury, you are complaining that the article does not have criticisms of the resolutions. I presume you are saying that the article does not have someone criticising each item of each year's resolution. The reason such criticism is not present is that, besides being enough work to fill many volumes, Wikipedia requires a WP:Neutral_point_of_view. Wikipedia is not the place to settle disputes. Wikipedia is merely a place to report what happened when. It is up to the reader to decide what is true from the facts presented. As long as facts are not omitted or distorted, no one has good cause to complain about the article. It is the duty of an editor to present facts. It is not the obligation of any editor to present all the opinions that might be held about all the topics that an article might raise. PYRRHON  talk   18:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Uhh, it is exactly WP:NPOV that requires both sides of an issue be represented. The descriptions of the article only mention that they're supposedly designed to promote "tolerance," and encourage people to "embrace all religions," when these are exactly the things the critics say they will undermine. At this point in time, the descriptions only include what the proposers said. That is one side. That is undue weight and trivially not neutral. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

AzureFury, it is clear that you are disparaging the article without having read it. The article makes clear that the rapporteurs of the United Nations are against harming people for criticising religion and the religious (See under 2008.). The article makes clear that human rights groups are against harming people for criticising religion and the religious (See under 2009.). The article makes clear that technologically advanced countries are against harming people for criticising religion and the religious (See under 2010.). If you want more detail in the article about why rapporteurs, progressive groups, and nations are against harming people for criticising religion and the religious, then put your sourced information with what is already there. Add to what is there. If you want to argue that the issue is only about blasphemy and East versus West, then create an independent article that features only your opinions. PYRRHON  talk   03:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

What are you trying to convince me of? That a POV issue does not exist or a POV issue can be resolved? And what specifically in 2008 protects people who criticize religion?

Reading through 2009 I am honestly thinking what the point of half of these statements are. Our politics aside, it seems to say the same thing over and over again. "These guys like it for this reason, these guy don't for this reason." This is not good writing for an encyclopedia. I think it could be safely and neutrally cut down. I understand that deletion is a sensitive subject on Wikipedia, but this isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. I think we need to cover all the valid points and then move on.

In any case, if TimeClock is to be believed, the reason these votes get mainstream coverage is because of the controversy. And the majority of the years in the section don't even mention it. Again, this is not fair weight. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I am restoring the POV tag which you removed without explanation on the grounds that every mainstream source that is in the article includes the controversy. When we mention the controversy for every year, then we can remove the POV tag. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead section

I have restored the lead section to the last version by me because my version is nearest to the version which came out of the Article for Deletion process here and because AzureFury's version has numerous faults:

(1) it is not true that the resolutions which condemn the defamation of religion are "sponsored annually by Pakistan";

(2) it is not true that the resolutions complain of Islam being associated "with human rights violations and terrorism since September 11[, 2001]"; as the first sentence by AzureFury says, the resolutions complaining about the defamation of Islam began in 1999;

(3) it is not clear in AzureFury's version what "it" references in the assertion that "it amounts to an international blasphemy law";

(4) the statement by Bennett Graham is his opinion, which might be better situated under the section for 2009, which speaks about "civil society organizations";

(5) it is not true that "the votes have historically been drawn between regional lines, with the Islamic Middle-East and its African allies voting in favor, and The West and some Latin American countries opposing"; in the General Assembly, Russia, China, and Cuba have supported the resolutions against the defamation of religions;

(6) the "resolution in 2010, condemning the Swiss ban on minarets," is a resolution of the UNHRC only; the resolution is not from the General Assembly; and the resolution mentions many more matters than merely Switzerland's ban on minarets. AzureFury's lead section is nothing more than a shoddy attempt to summarize one article by Hui Min Neo of Agence France-Presse (25 March 2010) [1].

I am aware that the article can be shortened and that it should use British spelling in preference to American spelling (because the United Nations uses British spelling). I will work on those matters when the article becomes stable. PYRRHON  talk   17:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Uhh, all the information you say is "not true" I copied nearly verbatim from the sources.

1. If that is an error I will remove it. Trivial edit.
2. See Waning Support for Defamation of Religion Resolution Undermines Defense of Islam, OIC Chief Says: "The OIC asserts that the resolutions are needed to combat “Islamophobia,” a phenomenon it says has worsened since Islamic terrorists attacked the U.S. in 2001."
3. Trivial fix.
4. The statement of Bennett Graham is used to concisely summarize the complaints of the human rights organizations, which are exactly why these resolutions receive so much press. As it stands right now, the only mention of the controversy is this one sentence in the lede, "Each year between 1999 and 2006, the Commission approved similar resolutions despite the opposition of countries and organisations which say the resolutions are calling for an international blasphemy law." To the uninitiated, that doesn't explain anything.
5. From the same source above, "Apart from the first two years, when the measure was adopted without a vote, the resolution has always passed easily, in a vote that showed a clear split between the Islamic bloc and its allies in the developing world on one hand, and mostly Western democracies on the other." It also says this, "The most visible trend has been countries in Latin America, Africa and the Pacific moving from supporting the resolutions to abstaining, and in some cases – mostly in Latin America – moving from abstaining to opposing the measures."
6. Every source that mentions all of these resolutions mentions the latest vote on the Swiss ban on minarets. The OIC thinks it's notable. So should we.

And we don't use an AFD vote to say that the article should never change. You shouldn't embarass yourself by making such ridiculous statements. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding #3, I think it's pretty clear what "it" is referring to as the complete sentence is:

Bennett Graham of the Becket Fund says regarding the resolutions, "It provides international cover for domestic anti-blasphemy laws, and there are a number of people who are in prison today because they have been accused of committing blasphemy."

I literally could not put the subject closer to the pronoun. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Dispute_re_Lead_section

The question to be answered is which lead_section (lede) is better for the article.

I prefer the lede used here for these reasons:

1. it is a well-written summary of the article;
2. it was written by editors who want to keep the article;
3. it defines some acronyms that the article uses;
4. it will not require revision each time that a new resolution by the UNHRC is made.

I object to the lede used here (AzureFury's lede—the current lede) for these reasons:

1. it is not a summary of Wikipedia's article but it is rather partly a summary of an editorial by Hui Min Neo of Agence France-Presse (25 March 2010) [2] and partly the opinions of Bennett Graham of the Beckett Fund and of User:AzureFury (See section above = Lead_section.), and is thus in contravention of such guidelines and policies as WP:Lead_section, WP:Good_article_criteria, and WP:NOR;
2. it is shoddily written (See section above = Lead_section.);
3. it contains non-factual statements (See section above = Lead_section.);
4. it does not define some acronyms that the article uses;
5. it will require revision each time that a new resolution by the UNHRC is made;
6. it makes no distinction between the UNHRC and the General Assembly.

PYRRHON  talk   02:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

As for why your version is not better...

1. You think yours is well-written because you wrote it. Get some more objective metrics. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
2. This is not even a valid point to bring up. You don't get to dismiss my views because we've disagreed in the past.
3. Defining acronyms is something that can be done anywhere, including the new lede. Using this as a reason to simply revert is childish.
4. That an article will need updating is, again, entirely inconsequential as far as our decision making process goes. Ongoing events are covered as ongoing events. For example, War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present). When there is more to say about this topic, it is not only an option that we update the page, but a necessity.

As for why my version is not worse...

1. All your complaints are either objectively false or have been addressed in an update. I recommend you review the talk page section you are directing others to, as you seem to have fallen behind in the discussion.
2. No u r shoddy. *rolls eyes*
3. This has been addressed and is no longer true.
4. This is such a petulant reason to object to my revision. It shows that you aren't trying to move forward in the discussion but simply to see your version restored to the page. See WP:OWN.
5. If the article needs updating, we should update it. Surprise, Wikipedia requires updates.
6. Distinguishing between the UNHRC and the General Assembly is fastidious if you ask me. But I would be willing to address this if you would stop whining about how I changed your article and actually try to come to some sort of consensus.

This is why I do not like your version...

1. You include information that is not particularly relevant to the matter at hand, such as this, "The Commission adopted the resolution after its title was changed to 'Defamation of religions,' " - Do we really need do know about the name of the first resolution before and after it was changed in the lede to an article about all of the resolutions? Also, this, "In March 2006, the Human Rights Commission became the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC)." What purpose does explaining name changes in the UN serve? This is excessive detail on a tangental topic. You also spend 3 sentences to say that the UN adopted a resolution against defamation of religion every year starting in 1999. Excessive detail and wordiness.
2. You downplay the controversy. You mention it in one sentence (which was suspiciously absent until I started editting the article). This is your mention of the controversy, "despite the opposition of countries and organisations which say the resolutions are calling for an international blasphemy law." Not all of Wikipedia's readers keep track of every resolution or political debate that comes out of the UN. What is a blasphemy law? Is it a good thing? Is it a bad thing? We need to explain why Western countries are objecting to the resolutions, and your version does not do that.
3. Despite excessive details in some areas, your version manages to be less informative. You do not mention how the votes break down, regionally. You do not mention the current status of the votes. Your version covers in less detail both the reasons for supporting the resolutions and and the reasons for opposing them.

I don't know why you've been behaving so passive aggressively, spamming me with edit warring templates, while not participating in the talk page. Have I ever said anything to imply that I would not be willing to compromise on the actual language? If you're upset that I AFD'd your article then you need to get over it. I had some pretty good reasons, I think. I don't know what you hope to accomplish by appealing to the bureaucracy. But if you want to make a big game out of this, then I am ready to play a round. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I can tell from your block-log and your edit-warring here that your only purpose is to make mischief. You are trying to destroy the article. First, you nominated it for deletion. When that failed, you blanked the text. Now, you are insisting upon a lede that is a shoddy summary of an off-Wikipedia news-item. I have invited you to indicate which sentence or paragraph in the consensus-version is giving you trouble but you have made no attempt to make the consensus-version better. You want your way and nothing else. I have no intention of "getting over it." If I were not defending this article, it would be nothing but nonsense in sub-standard English. You seem to be determined to be blocked again. You should know that Wikipedia does not give out medals for long block-logs! PYRRHON  talk   17:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's ironic that you accuse me of attempting to "destroy the article" when my version of the lede is longer. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I prefer the current version of the lead for the reason that it more informative and is a better introduction to the subject matter. If there is no dispute as to its factual accuracy, I suggest that this be the lead or the basis for the lead.—Figureofnine (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This response is not helpful. There is a dispute about the factual accuracy of AzureFury's lede as I spelled out in great detail above. This response does not address my comments and ignores the matter of AzureFury's lede being a poor summary of an off-Wikipedia news item. Other opinions are welcome but please read the sections above before offering your opinion. PYRRHON  talk   16:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, I've resolved the alleged factual accuracy. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

Ok, because I'm editting in good faith and I believe you're editting in goodish faith, I'm going to attempt to discuss the factual accuracy of this tag before I remove it. At Talk:Defamation_of_religions_and_the_United_Nations#Lead_section, you mentioned 3 things with regards to factual accuracy:

(1) it is not true that the resolutions which condemn the defamation of religion are "sponsored annually by Pakistan";

(2) it is not true that the resolutions complain of Islam being associated "with human rights violations and terrorism since September 11[, 2001]"; as the first sentence by AzureFury says, the resolutions complaining about the defamation of Islam began in 1999;

(5) it is not true that "the votes have historically been drawn between regional lines, with the Islamic Middle-East and its African allies voting in favor, and The West and some Latin American countries opposing"; in the General Assembly, Russia, China, and Cuba have supported the resolutions against the defamation of religions;

As I stated previously, 2 and 5 are specifically stated in one of our sources. So that leaves 1, which I already addressed by removing "by Pakistan," such that the article now states, "...sponsored on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference..." Is this what is now inaccurate? If not, then what is? 2 and 5 are a pretty trivial summary of the sources I think, but if you disagree, please say so. I'm going to post on your talk page following this post, and then I'll give you 3 days to respond. If by then you have not responded, I will remove the tag. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Stating that something is true is not enough to make the something true. Your statements with regard to my list of non-factual items in the lede are false. The resolutions about defamation began in 1999. The resolutions in 1999, 2000, and 2001 occurred before the event of 11 September 2001 and those resolutions could not, therefore, have complained about "human rights violations and terrorism since September 11[, 2001]." There is nothing in the resolutions of 1999, 2000, and 2001 about 11 September 2001. I do not care what you imagine some source says; time-travel is not possible. Furthermore, the early resolutions were not addressed "by the UN" but only by the Commission on Human Rights. And at no point did the UN condemn "defamation of religion." (There is a difference between religion and religions.) I do not know what you imagine the Organisation of the Islamic Conference "sponsored" in the UN. I do not know what you think the OIC did. You say your claim about voting between regional lines (whatever that means) is "specifically stated" in some source. You have not provided the source of your claim. In any case, the claim is false.

Let me cut to the chase. Trying to salvage your nonsensical lede is like trying to prop up a long-dead horse. The exercise is foolish. It is time to bury the smelly thing, and move on.

You did inspire a constructive change to the consensus-lede, and you have every reason to be pleased that you made a worthwhile contribution here; but you do not have the expertise to write the lede. Let it go. If you want to make another worthwhile contribution to the article, then restore the consensus-lede and remove the tags. If you want to learn about blasphemy law and about some of the atrocities that are going on in the name of religion, then Wikipedia has a fine selection of articles. I urge you to read them. PYRRHON  talk   23:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Lol...you should know that the next article I'm going to look at is Islam and blasphemy. I hope you can learn to work collaboratively and control your temper before then. Now, on to your points...

1. If you had not been acting so childish, we could have addressed this minor oversight weeks earlier. But I've gone ahead and made a change to fix it.
2. This is from your version of the lede, "In that year, Pakistan brought before the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (CHR)..." The CHR is a part of the UN. What are you trying to prove? Do you think this is high school debate class or something? When you complain about something, please make sure your complaints have actual substance.
3. This is from CNS: "As its annual “defamation of religion” resolution loses ground at the United Nations after a decade of successes, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is urging its members to close ranks on an issue."[3] Does this not imply that the motion is sponsored on behalf of the OIC? If you know something contradictory, please see if you can take a break from your tantrum to say it.
4. I both linked you to the source and quoted the source for the bit about regional lines. I'm not going to placate you again.

Why is it whenever I'm editting articles about the Middle-East, editors who are contradicting the sources, justify it by saying either the sources are wrong or that I don't have the expertise? We follow the sources on Wikipedia, not what you think you know. If you can't deal with that, feel free to GTFO. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not find any fault in the news reports by Hui Min Neo or by Patrick Goodenough. Those reports give good accounts of what the UN, the CHR or UNHRC, the OIC, and various civil society organisations have been saying since 1999. I find fault in your condensation of those reports. You are misrepresenting what they say. For that reason, I challenged your expertise.

You say other editors have challenged your expertise at other articles. That circumstance is not surprising. When an editor misrepresents sources, other editors are likely to challenge that editor's expertise. What a challenged editor should do in those circumstances is confine his editing to articles that do not require the reporting of complicated issues. PYRRHON  talk   16:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to the regional bit when you say I am "misrepresenting sources" ? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 16:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Try to appreciate the wisdom at WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. As I said, it is time to bury the stinky thing. PYRRHON  talk   04:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

As you wish. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll ask you again, what is left that is factually inaccurate? You're not going to leave that tag on there indefinitely. If need be, we can take this to ANI if you don't want to cooperate. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 16:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like some clarification of the situation here. I think you agree that mediation would not be helpful here. We do not have a problem communicating. I think you agree that a Request for Comment would be futile; it would likely be no more useful than the Request for a Third Opinion. So we are left to consider the noticeboards. Please indicate whether you agree.

What remedy do you want from the editors at a noticeboard? What do you want them to do? PYRRHON  talk   15:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Jesus...why don't you just save us both some time and answer the question? I'm not going to waste my time with the noticeboards. They are chronically underwatched. I'll be going straight to ANI, so we can resolve this immediately. So I'll ask you one last time, now that I have addressed every concern you have brought up, what is left that is factually inaccurate? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

AzureFury, your lede is objectionable because:

1. it violates WP:Lead_section; it is not an introduction to, or a summary of, Wikipedia's article but it is rather—for the most part—a bad abridgment of a news report by Hui Min Neo of Agence France-Presse (25 March 2010) [4].
2. it violates WP:Recentism; it is an account of recent events—in the manner of a news report—rather than an encyclopedic overview of the subject.
3. it violates WP:Good_article_criteria; it contains non-factual statements.
4. it violates WP:Writing_better_articles; it fails to distinguish between the UNHRC and the General Assembly.
5. it violates WP:NOR; it contains your opinion that "the votes have historically been drawn between regional lines, with the Islamic Middle-East and its African allies voting in favor, and The West and some Latin American countries opposing".

It is unwise to spend time propping up a bad lede when a good lede is ready to roll. PYRRHON  talk   01:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Compromise

Could I do anything to make the consensus-lede acceptable to you? If so, specify the changes you would like. The changes should be consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Provide references. PYRRHON  talk   01:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you can remove your tag from my version of the lede, which the third opinion supported. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Factual accuracy tag dispute

For editors coming in, the dispute is over the factual accuracy tag on the lede section. Pyrrhon brought up some minor but valid points regarding factual accuracy, which have since been addressed in tweaks to the current lede. I have asked him to explain why the tag should remain, to which he responded "it contains factual errors" and "my version is better." Here are my responses to his points in the section above.

1. This is from WP:Lead_section: "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article." Pyrrhon's version is trivially worse as uninitiated readers will not understand the controversy or the who is voting for what and why. Further, the source he listed summarizes the the UN votes on Defamation of Religions. Of course that is a good source for the lede of the article. It is one of the few non-primary sources that he has bothered to find.
2. The claim of recentism is childish, like this entire dispute over the tag. One sentence to describe the current status of the votes is not recentism. Is it "recentism" to label a war as "ongoing"?
3. No it doesn't. Perhaps Pyrrhon has stopped reading the updates, but every claim of factual inaccuracy has been addressed.
4. "UNHRC" stands for "United Nations Human Rights Council" and "General Assembly" refers to "United Nations General Assembly". I don't know what point Pyrrhon is trying to make, or how it would help or hurt the article. Perhaps he is too desperate to find some detail in his version that is not covered in my version that he has lost the ability to think rationally?
5. As I have stated repeatedly, the comment on the regional breakdown is a summary of the sources. This is what we do on Wikipedia, summarize. Pyrrhon's complaints are nothing more than infantile expression of ownership.

We have already had a third opinion weigh in supporting the current version[5], which Pyrrhon dismissed as "not helpful"[6]. Comments or edits would be appreciated. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks more like a content dispute. If the third opinion didn't solve it, have you considered a request for comment on the issue? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Last time I did that, no one came for more than a week. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

*Actually, the last time I did that no one came until I took it to ANI. RFCs are too underwatched these days to resolve a dispute. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just saw this after browsing AN/I so you could be right about RFC's. I like AzureFury's version better as a summary, but agree it could be improved.

• "Bennett Graham of the Becket Fund says regarding the resolutions, "It provides international cover for domestic anti-blasphemy laws, and there are a number of people who are in prison today because they have been accused of committing blasphemy.""

Is the above sentence really necessary in the introduction? It's not much use as a summary of events, presenting a POV, and it seems that this person and this group whose notability is not covered in the introduction is getting WP:UNDUE weight leadwise.

• "Members of the Islamic bloc express concern that Islam is being associated with human rights violations and terrorism [1] since September 11, and argue the resolutions are necessary to combat Islamophobia."

It is true that Islam has been associated with Human Rights Violations and that Islamic states worry about it (per source) but I think that it shouldn't be in the first paragraph, and that it should be worded more clearly to show that the resolutions started before the Twin Towers, maybe like so:

"Islamic states have expressed concerns that Islam is sometimes associated with terrorism and human rights violations, especially after the attack on the twin towers, and argue that the resolutions are necessary to combat Islamophobia."

Anyway, that's my 2c/p, hope it helps somehow. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the bit about Islamophobia, but I disagree about the Bennett quote, and here's why:

• It is not so much an issue that we're presenting a POV in the lede. Claiming that the resolutions are necessary is a POV, but we represent it per WP:WEIGHT. My aim was to mathematically balance the lede, with two sentences in support of the resolutions and two sentences opposed.
• Bennett Graham is speaking on behalf of the The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, an organization notable enough for its own article. Wikilinking was my method of establishing notability.
• There are two things explained by the Bennet quote that are not covered elsewhere in the lede, specifically that people are imprisoned for "blasphemy," and that he/they believe the resolutions are being used as international cover for this.

I'm not adamant about keeping the Bennet quote in there, but I do still think it's a nice way of summarizing the complaints of the opposition, and attributing it to a notable organization. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

While the quote is useful, placing it as a quote in the introduction seems weighted towards them. Although I like the 2 for 2 against, the for shouldn't be stated on the opinion of one NGO. If it were, say, Ban or another large UN figure, then maybe it would be useful in the lead. I'd reword it to a more fluid prose, just use the quote as a reference. Reading the wikilinked page, it seems notable enough for the article itself.

Any other specific issues you need weighed on? I think I'll watch this page now, just to see how things work out. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Another problem with the quote by Bennett Graham is that it trivializes the issue. People are not merely imprisoned for blasphemy. People are tortured and killed for blasphemy. The people tortured and killed do not have to commit blasphemy. Some lunatic's accusation is often enough to doom someone else. See Islam and blasphemy. The quote is a poor choice whether for the lede or for the body of the article. PYRRHON  talk   16:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd gladly incorporate that if you could find a source. Most of what I'm finding connections these resolutions to imprisonment.[7] Fox news mentions an execution[8], but it's Fox news sooo... AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the best I can do with the sources we have to make something that is not 'easily challenged' on WP:OR grounds. How's that look? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Update

I referred this matter to Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. I complained there about AzureFury's edit-warring. Administrator Black Kite said I should take the matter elsewhere "[s]ince there is no 3RR, and the edit-war is slow-moving and not actively disruptive." See here. I am satisfied that 3RR is the appropriate venue. If no remedy is forthcoming from that venue, then I accept that a remedy must come from the actions of other editors who disapprove of what AzureFury has done.

I am satisfied that I have done as much as a reasonable editor can do to keep this article from being spoiled. I will keep the template over the lede in place until someone restores the consensus-lede or writes a better one. In that regard, I find the comments of Chipmunkdavis helpful. I hope other editors will offer their thoughtful comments.

Some of the article's links are dead or malformed. I hope someone will repair the bad links. All the links should be made permanent by using WebCite or the other service. PYRRHON  talk   20:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it your position that you will keep the tag for factual inaccuracy on the lede, regardless of whether or not it is factually inaccurate? Note that Chipmunkdavis made no mention of factual inaccuracy in the lede. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No, that is not my position. If the lede becomes factually accurate, I will remove the template. I may, however, replace that template with another. As I have indicated in previous sections, the current lede suffers from more than a lack of fact. The guidelines on the use of templates recommend that an editor not clutter the article with templates. The point of a template is to direct the reader to the Discussion page. The Discussion page is the place to list the flaws that an article has.

You misrepresent my position by saying that I said I would remove the template only if the consensus-lede is restored. I said, "I will keep the template over the lede in place until someone restores the consensus-lede or writes a better one." See the difference! PYRRHON  talk   22:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You misrepresented the word "misrepresent." What is factually inaccurate? The regional bit? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Lede is unsatisfactory

I have placed a template atop the article. My reasons for doing so occupy most of this talk page. Someone should help AzureFury. PYRRHON  talk   05:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I've addressed all of your complaints. If you want the template to stay, you should repeat what you think has not been addressed. I'll be removing it tomorrow night if you do not respond. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Stop fibbing! You have not addressed all my complaints. Even if the content were improved, the English would remain C-minus or D. If you write something in Microsoft Word first, Word will help you with grammar and other matters. PYRRHON  talk   16:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

What haven't I addressed? You're not going to justify any tags with ambiguity. This isn't a game. Don't think you'll get your way by gaming the system. I am here actively trying to resolve this issue. What is wrong with the lede? Repeat what you think has not been addressed. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

AzureFury, I have repeatedly explained why your lede is objectionable. Chip has explained why your lede does not comply with Wikipedia's guidelines. You do not have a sufficient knowledge of the subject-matter nor the language-skills nor the familiarity with Wikipedia's guidelines to make your lede tolerable. You are wasting your time and my time and Chip's. If you want some information about why some countries are supporters of the resolutions and some countries are against them, I am willing to revise the consensus-lede. If you want to add references to the revised lede, I would welcome them. I am not going to fix your lede one phrase at a time.

Chip, I see no alternative except to restore the consensus-lede for the time being. If you see some other option, please let me know. Thank you for contributing here. PYRRHON  talk   04:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

You're delusional. Every editor who has compared our respective versions has sided with mine, including chip. Note that Wikipedia is not therapy and it is not our responsibility to deal with your insanity. Your choices are work to improve the current version or stop editting the lede. Making vague accusations of 'lack of expertise' and 'poor language-skills' is not going to cut it. If that's your only rationale for tagging the lede, then I'm going to remove it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I have now addressed literally everything Chip mentioned. What is wrong with the section now? If you say "you lack expertise" and/or "it is shoddily written" I will infer you have no real complaints and remove the tag. If you have a real issue, now is the time to say it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment

. There has been an ongoing edit war over the lede of this article for about a month now. We have two version, mine and Pyrrhon's. We have had multiple editors comment, per Pyrrhon's request, on the issue, and each one has supported my version.[9][10] When Pyrrhon is not restoring his version of the lede, referring to it as the "consensus-lede" (a reference to an AFD for the article), he is tagging the lede for factual accuracy. Initially, there were minor oversights which have since been addressed in tweaks to the current lede. Having addressed these issues, I've spent the above two talk page sections trying to get Pyrrhon to explain what is wrong with the current lede, with no results. He has stopped responding on the talk page and is edit warring to maintain the factual accuracy tag with no explanation as to why it should remain. I have gone to ANI. I have gone to editor's talk pages. Pyrrhon took this to WP:3RRN. No one seems to care enough to actually edit. What I'm looking for in a response to this RFC is not a fire and forget comment. We have enough of those for a clear consensus. Unfortunately, POV warriors do not respect logic. What I need at this point is an editor willing to actually edit the article. This dispute isn't going anywhere until an editor besides me removes the tag. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to correct AzureFury again. There are 3 versions of the lede: (1) his, (2) the consensus-version, and (3) mine. My lede should be the current lede. Please check the history to see which lede is in place. My objections to AzureFury's lede occupy many sections above. Note that the article's POV-tag or neutrality-tag or whatever is there now was put there by AzureFury. The POV warrior who does not respect logic is AzureFury. See here. PYRRHON  talk   06:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis restored the version by AzureFury to the lede. My lede is here. PYRRHON  talk   15:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

What the hell? You've seriously lost your mind. I haven't put any tags on the article, and the third version you mention you just made, after I started this RFC. Anyone can check the history for the proof of your lies. Most likely you've only created a third version because you realize that your first will find (and has found) zero support among the community, and thus in order for you to maintain ownership of the article, you have to create a new version. Unfortunately for you, it suffers many of the same problems as your last version. It is excessively verbose and detailed. It also has several new problems. Ironically, it is poorly written. As a former SAT teacher, I'd give you a 2 for 'varied sentence structure' (look at the last paragraph). Also, you've written it with a clear POV. I invite editors to compare your brand new version to mine, and if the consensus really does shift your way, I'll do what you are incapable of doing and accept it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

My lede is the compromise I proposed under the section = Compromise. PYRRHON  talk   15:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Your "compromise" was to restore the "consensus-lede" AKA your original version. Your attempts at appearing to act in good faith are undermined by your bad faith edits. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 15:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to look at this a while ago but only just got around to it. I don't have time to look into the article history in detail but looking at the two versions initially identified by AzureFury here are my comments:

Both versions have merits and some problems.

• AzureFury's version:

• Good start explaining the non-binding nature of the resolutions.
• Direct quote of the resolution is good.
• Needs to reference the statement that Organization of the Islamic Conference is the driving force behind the motions. It is in one of the existing references so that can be reused.

 Done AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Need to reword the sentence "Religious groups, human rights activists, free-speech activists, and several countries in the West have condemned the resolutions" as it strongly implies a consensus among western activists against a religious defamation resolution. I am pretty sure that most religious and human rights groups are against defamation of religions, to at least some degree, and even many freedom of speech activists would accept that there is a limit to the freedom to make deliberate false statements about people. Clearly there is a much more nuanced debate going on here. Quite likely there are people who support the principle of condemning defamation of religions objecting certain specific elements of these resolutions or worrying about their scope for abusive misinterpretation. We need to decide whether to open this can of worms here or make a more vague/general statement in the lead and deal with it later.

---

I've been looking at this and I'm not sure how to approach it. I can't come up with an elegant summary that fits in one sentence, and if we use more than one, the WP:weight will start shifting towards the opposition. Here's what the sources say..

"In both Geneva and New York, however, the OIC has seen its sizeable majority decline in recent years, coinciding with stepped-up opposition by Western governments and energetic lobbying by legal, religious freedom, freedom of expression and humanist advocacy groups." "Opponents argue that the concept of defamation applies to individuals, not the religions to which they may adhere. They claim the resolutions, although non-binding, are designed to shield Islam from criticism, with the effect of undermining freedom of expression and jeopardizing the rights of religious minorities and of Muslims wishing to convert to other faiths."[11]

Referring to the Minarets ban...

"But while all countries agreed on the need to combat religious discrimination, debate on the resolution was intense as some were against the resolution on fears that it could be used to curb freedom of expression.

Mexico for instance said it was against the resolution as "part of its orientation touches upon political and social principles" which were against principles of the freedom of expression and the question of secularism.

The European Union also pointed out that the concept of defamation should not fall under the remit of human rights because it conflicted with the right to freedom of expression, while the United States said free speech could be hindered by the resolution.

"The European Union believes that reconciling the notion of defamation with discrimination is a problematic endeavour," French ambassador Jean-Baptiste Mattei said on behalf of the bloc.

Eileen Donahoe, U.S. ambassador to the UN, also slammed the resolution as an "ineffective way to address" concerns about discrimination.

"We cannot agree that prohibiting speech is the way to promote tolerance, because we continue to see the 'defamation of religions' concept used to justify censorship, criminalisation, and in some cases violent assaults and deaths of political, racial, and religious minorities around the world," she said.

"Contrary to the intentions of most member states, governments are likely to abuse the rights of individuals in the name of this resolution, and in the name of the Human Rights Council," added the U.S. envoy."

AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

---

• The reported claim that the resolutions constitute an "international blasphemy law" references back to a single spokesman for an Irish Atheist group but is implied to be representative of the nature of the opposition as a whole. I think we need to reference a few different organisations making this claim before attributing this to the opposition as a whole. It might just be one guy getting a bit carried away.
• The nature of the alleged causal link from non-binding UN resolutions to actual, enforceable, domestic blasphemy laws needs to be explained better. It is not obvious to me that non-binding UN resolutions have much affect on the real world at all so the argument to the contrary needs explaining.
• The part saying "The votes generally break down along regional lines, with the Islamic Middle-East and its African allies voting in favor, and The West and some Latin American countries opposing. Support has been waning in recent years," may well be justifiable but I would be happier if it was referenced to somebody else making that analysis rather than us pulling the narrative together directly from the voting figures.

 Done Almost verbatim from the source. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Pyrrhon's version:

• I don't have much problem with what is in this version. The problem is what it doesn't say. It underplays the controversy of the subject, not even bothering to reference it.
• I like the way it explains that the resolutions were initially intended to be specific to Islam and were proposed by Pakistan. This is an important part of the background. That said, it is in the main body of the article.
• Later part is unreferenced.

Pyrrhon's version has the advantage of brevity but would need to be expanded with coverage of the criticism and better referencing. AzureFury's version seems a bit more "stodgy" but it has the advantage of establishing the context that this is about non-binding resolutions and also has a good direct quote establishing the core element of the resolutions. I do think AzureFury's version overplays the criticism by making it look far more broadly based than it really is. I think that either one could be worked into an acceptable lead section but that maybe AzureFury's version is a better starting point if it can be rebalanced a bit.

I do think that the article as a whole might need to be recast. I am not sure that the year by year approach works well. Possibly by the time we have balanced and nuanced the lead it will be too long. If so, maybe it needs to be summarised for the lead and the longer version expanded and used to shape a rewritten version of the article.

Finally, I would point out that getting into a heated argument prevents productive development of the article. Whichever version we decide to go for as the starting point I call on both of the competing authors to accept this starting point and work together to address the outstanding issues. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review this whole matter Daniel. I'll go about addressing the issues you mentioned as soon as I'm on break...or when I get home. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Editors, my lede does everything that a lede should do. It explains the origin of the term "defamation of religions". My lede defines the term. My lede discusses the resolutions in the CHR, UNHRC, and General Assembly. My lede encapsulates the debates about the resolutions. My lede summarises the article's content. My lede obeys Wikipedia's guidelines. Please tell AzureFury that you prefer my lede. Help make Wikipedia better. PYRRHON  talk   20:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Your lead isn't terrible but I think AzureFury's one is a better starting point as it has more of what we need in it. It does need work to avoid giving the impression of a monolithic opposition block but that can be cured. Please don't take it personally if people prefer this as a starting point. It still needs work and you are welcome to work on it. Eventually we will get it to a point where everybody is happy. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Lead is now reading much better than either of the two previous versions. Just to nitpick, by "sponsored on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference" does that mean the OIC sponsors the resolutions? What does sponsoring the resolutions mean? Just word that a tad better. I suggest moving the focus away from the lead to rewriting the rest of the article somehow. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The OIC is not a country, so it doesn't have any direct representation in the UN. Some country has to sponsor the resolution on their behalf. Pakistan has done it at least twice. I assumed previously that it was them every time, but Pyrrhon says that's not the case. I'm not an expert, so I can't say. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

Introduction aside, what exactly is the neutrality issue (labelled August 2010) in the remainder of the article about? Is it linked with the introduction contents or a completely separate issue? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a seperate issue. My understanding is that these resolutions only receive mainstream coverage because they become a controversy. And since we don't even cover the other side until near the bottom, that seems non-neutral to me. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 14:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Without commenting on the specifics here, I would warn against establishing a precedent that says that "people who get loud and angry are entitled the lion's share of the coverage in Wikipedia". Obviously criticism is relevant and needs to be covered but we need to take a worldwide view of this. The media will tend to latch on to controversial aspects of any issue, often ignoring the major but uncontroversial elements and the voices of groups who are less local or who have a more nuanced view which is not easily put into short, angry soundbites. We have to take a broader view and cover the issue as a whole, not just the shouty bits. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Whatever happened to neutrality?

"The defamation of religions prohibits free speech and has caused arrests, trials and executions of many in different countries according to different human rights organizations.[6] Islamic practices, like wife-beating, caning of women,[7] honor killing of girls, giving death sentence to rape victims,[8] even to 13 year old girls,[9][10] and the killing of people who leave Islam are incompatible with the idea of human rights. The defamation of religions is often used to support these medieval practices, promote them and execute people."

Are we talking about Islam itself or Islamic countries? As big a surprise as it might be, there's a huge difference.

Whatever happened to this being an encyclopedia and not so much a Christian Western European circlejerk? Look at the page about the Moors. Look at the second picture. What the hell does that add to the article? And why are there pictures of one of Saddam's kids' dead body on his page but there isn't one of the bastard himself? Whenever I read about anybody remotely associated with Islam I feel like I'm reading a pamphlet on the Jews written by a Nazi. No I'm not exaggerating.

And why are stories of Vlad the Impaler's many sadistic tendencies backed by tragic tales of his childhood? And what's up with a guy like Atilla having flying Jesuses on his page when the man was most likely a pagan? Did Jesus really swoop down and tell him not to attack Rome, or did he do as the article itself says and withdraw because of famine? Cool, Raphael drew good pictures. That doesn't make it any more relevant.

I kind of don't remember Wikipedia being like this at all. Have I just overlooked it all these years, or is this something new? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.246.7 (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There are no pictures in this article. Nor Vlad or Atilla! You must be talking about some other article.1812ahill (talk) 04:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old POV template with a dormant discussion, per the instructions on that template's page:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

If editors are continuing to work toward resolution of any issue and I missed it, however, please feel free to restore. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Defamation of religion and the United Nations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120831112332/http://www2.ohchr.org:80/english/issues/racism/AdHocCommittee.htm to http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/racism/AdHocCommittee.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Defamation of religion and the United Nations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.becketfund.org/files/73099.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Defamation of religion and the United Nations. 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/20090705133101/http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=9b8e3a6d-795d-440f-a5de-6ff6e78c78d5 to http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=9b8e3a6d-795d-440f-a5de-6ff6e78c78d5

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 04:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)