Talk:Religious segregation

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pmonstertruck.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Athos

Shouldn't be a section about Mount Athos in Greece? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.90.222.48 (talk) 06:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Israel section

There is no basis to believe that accusations of "apartheid" in Israel are in any way related to religious segregation. The accusers do not mention religion as a basis for what they call "apartheid" or "segregation". Pecher Talk 21:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the section is balanced as it makes the very point you do in the paragraph below. I don't particularly want to defend "apartheid" alligations but this is a noteable group in a religious conflict (ie arab-israeli conflict). Your point of view that this is not true is noted as it should be. But this section could be improved.Hypnosadist 21:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, my point is not whether the accusations are true or false; it's just that they are not about religious segregation. Pecher Talk 22:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you don't think its religious segregation but many people do, add a more rebutals to this arguement ie the treatment of Muslims in Isreal proper etc.Hypnosadist 22:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps many people do, but they are not quoted in this section. I am removing it. Isarig 03:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That segregation in this case has a religious basis is implicit in all the references. Or let me ask you: if it is not based on religion, then what is it based on? Restoring. Regards, Huldra 23:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To th extent it exists, it is based on ethnic, not religious basis. As I wrote before, people who believe this is religion-based are not quoted in the cites sources - so out it goes. Isarig 04:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. housing and organizations?

There's no mention in this article of the historic issues of religious segregation in housing in the U.S. (referenced in films such as Gentleman's Agreement and ''Auntie Mame'') and in organizations such as country clubs. I realize these topics surely are treated in more specific articles, such as the one on antisemitism (a term commonly used in the U.S. to refer exclusively to anti-Jewish attitudes), but this article would be another good place to discuss it. And before you tell me to be bold, let me say that I would, but I have no time as I type this. I really don't even have time to type THIS, so ... Lawikitejana 22:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OR

Edits such as these are inappropriate.[1]

WP:NOR, and WP:V are very clear that sources must be provided for all content. If these sources are not provided content may be removed. If there is any misunderstanding of WP:NOR and WP:V, I'd be happy to help you out. But please realize that you *must* provide sources.Bless sins 20:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Maier, can you please top adding unsourced content that appears to be original research to this article.[2]
Please consult WP:V and WP:OR.Bless sins 03:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still OR

The current section (on Saudi Arabia and Iran) is based on the following sources.

  • "Saudi Arabia - International Religious Freedom Report 2006". U.S. Department of State - Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. 2006. Retrieved 2007-05-08. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)
Here is one of many applicable quotes from this citation. Remember segregation as defined by this article refers to seperation of any kind. It is not limited to the BS term "physical seperation".

"The Government required noncitizens to carry iqamas, or legal resident identity cards, which contained a religious designation for "Muslim" or "non-Muslim." There were reports that individual mutawwa'in pressured sponsors and employers not to renew iqamas of non-Muslims they had sponsored for employment if it was discovered or suspected that those individuals had either led, sponsored, or participated in private non-Muslim worship services. Additionally, there were reports that mutawwa'in pressured employers and sponsors to reach verbal agreements with non-Muslim employees, who must promise that they will not participate in private or public non-Muslim worship services."

Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 22:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "segregation" refers to physical separation. Secondly what is the discrimination here? If non-Muslims break Saudi laws (which prohibit non-Muslim worship) then they are told to leave the country. The U.S. or any other country would also deport criminals. Whether the Saudi laws are fair or not, is another matter.Bless sins 03:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's just silly. A law which prohibits non-Muslims the same religious freedom as Muslims is inherently discriminatory and racist. That's the whole point. Any implementation of discriminatory laws which results in the expulsion of people based on religion is per definition religious segregation. I'm sure you'd agree that if Israel made a law forbidding non-Jewish worship and expelled non-Jews to leave the country, then it too would constitute religious segregation. Weather it's law or not. Rune X2 14:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This entire reference deals with the seperation and unequal treatment on non-muslims. see for example the second paraagraph;

"There was a further deterioration of the extremely poor status of respect for religious freedom during the reporting period, most notably for Baha'is and Sufi Muslims. The country's religious minorities include Sunni and Sufi Muslims, Baha'is, Zoroastrians, Jews, and Christians. There were reports of imprisonment, harassment, intimidation, and discrimination based on religious beliefs."

Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 22:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lack "of respect for religious freedom" is not religious segregation.Bless sins 03:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If lack of respect is official and constitutes such physical things as imprisonment, harassment, intimidation etc. then it is segregation. Rune X2 14:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Full of proof od discrimination including this;

"The Government did not officially permit non-Muslim clergy to enter the country for the purpose of conducting religious services, although some came under other auspices. Such restrictions made it very difficult for most non-Muslims to maintain contact with clergymen and attend services. Catholics and Orthodox Christians, who require a priest on a regular basis to receive the sacraments required by their faith, particularly were affected."

Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 22:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the above paragraph, "Catholics and Orthodox Christians" already exist in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government is only prohibiting the entry of a few Christians who declare that they are coming to Saudi Arabia to violate its laws (public non-Muslim worship is prohibited in Saudi Arabia). Similarly the U.S. has prohibited the entry of anyone affiliated with HAMAS or Hezbollah. That doesn't mean there is religious segregation.Bless sins 03:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing individual Catholic or Orthodox Christians with emissaries from terror organizations reveals a complete lack of understanding. Members from Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaida, etc. and other official terror organizations are not barred from entering the USA based on their religion. It doesn't even enter into the question. They could Christians, Buddhist or any other thing - they'd still be barred from entering. What SA is practicing is religious segregation at its borders, and by its racist policies whereby life for religious minorities becomes almost impossible, religious segregation inside. Rune X2 14:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Saudi Arabia - An upsurge in public executions". Amnesty Intarnational. Retrieved 2007-05-08. On 3 September 1992 Sadiq 'Abdul-Karim Malallah was publicly beheaded in al-Qatif in Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province after being convicted of apostasy and blasphemy.

Yet none of these sources (as far as I have read) accuses Saudi Arabia or Iran of segregating people by religion. Nowhere it is stated that Muslims and non-Muslims travel on different roads, or live in different settlements. If the allegation of "religious segregations" is not clear, I will remove the section.Bless sins 18:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the section because not one source accused the countries of "religious segregation". It also contained nonsense like "Saudi Arabia deny non-Muslims some of the civil rights and voting privileges they grant to Muslims". The source simply didn't say that.Bless sins 00:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BS doesn't address the Amnesty International report included in the massive slab of referenced text he just removed. I am going to revert this vandalism until BS can learn not whitewash everything he doesn't like, just because one reference in the section doesn't mention the exact phrase "religious segregation". Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 01:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does any reference talk about religious segregation?Bless sins 02:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the lead of this article; Religious segregation involves the separation of people on the basis of religion. The Saudi Arabia and Iran sections go into vast amounts of detail describing how these countries seperate people on the basis of religion. The BS line of thought that limits it to "physical segregation" defies its definition and moronic to boot. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 04:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the Merriam Webster dictionary of Segregation'; 1: the act or process of segregating : the state of being segregated2 a: the separation or isolation of a race, class, or ethnic group by enforced or voluntary residence in a restricted area, by barriers to social intercourse, by separate educational facilities, or by other discriminatory means b: the separation for special treatment or observation of individuals or items from a larger group <segregation of gifted children into accelerated classes>3: the separation of allelic genes that occurs typically during meiosis. Again this disproves the BS allegation that segregation is a "physical" phenomena and vindicates the text he keeps removing under false pretenses. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 05:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"the separation or isolation of a race, class, or ethnic group" Note how you definition doesn't talk about "religious group". Bless sins 21:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you haven't responded to my comments above. Finally, does any of your sources consider Saudi/Iranian laws as examples of "religion segregation"?Bless sins 21:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the definition of "segregation" does include religion does not mean there is no such thing as "religious segregation". Segregation includes the concect of "seperation" and all of the sources that you claim is OR contains information about seperation in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 09:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"the definition of "segregation" does include religion" No the definition of segregation that you provided does NOT include religion. Secondly, even if you do succeed in providing such a definition you will have proved nothing. Using two different sources to advance a position is a violation of WP:SYNTH.Bless sins 01:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While in the above discussion, editors try to define religious segregations through their original research, none has brought up a source that actually says "religious segregation". I still await such a source.Bless sins (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for a response.Bless sins (talk) 05:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to state that you have read the dictionary definition. You need to explain why you think "seperation" and "segregation" are different. You need to explain how you are being WP:DISRUPTIVE given that all sources in this article have the same issue. You need to explain why you would keep removing one section and retain all the others in violation of WP:POINT? You also need to explain how you are not in violation of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DISRUPT when you have reverted by multiple editors. Prester John (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not one of your sources, Prester John, makes any comment about "religious segregation" - the topic of the article. Sure there is religious discrimination, but not religious segregation. If you disagree provide direct quotes from your sources to show that they indeed allege "religious segregation". BTW, you have also not provided any dictionary definition of "religious segregation".Bless sins (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are following this talk page discussion correct? I suggest you read it one more time, the defintion is included above. Prester John (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No definition of "religious segregation" was provided. A definition for "segregation" was provided, but as you know this article is about "religious segregation" not simply "segregation". None of your sources say "religious segregation". If any do, please quote them - I have asked you to do so several times over and and over.Bless sins (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of original research going on here. The section in question is currently a mishmash of different sources saying different things (ironically, none of which actually assert religious segregation). The section as it stands is currently a tendentious generalised tract about 'non-Muslims in the Muslim world' which consists of sources reporting specific issues in Saudi or Iran (which seem to be implying "discrimination" rather than "segregation").
The best way to nip this in the bud is thusly: either find reliable sources making this specific assertion, or refrain from inserting such material which currently constitutes an original synthesis of sources. ITAQALLAH 15:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again sources that are not at all about religious segregation are bieng inputted into the article. Specifically, I removed some,[3][4] but these were restored. Can someone please provide the quotes from these sources that refer to religious segregation?Bless sins (talk) 03:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for the quotes.Bless sins (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Britain - segregation in government

It may be worth considering that the British government is a form of religious segregation. See Sydney Morning Herald article. Quote: "The 1701 Act of Settlement, which prohibits a Catholic from acceding to the throne, and which prevents the heir to the throne from marrying a Catholic, is still on Britain's statute books." Maybe there should be a Britain section that includes both Northern Ireland and religious segregation in the Monarchy. Food for thought. Lester 23:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly interesting. But where does the source say this is "religious segregation". What you have provided appears to be a case more of religious discrimination.Bless sins (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


WP:BAN

restoring sourced content from banned user as it is sourced, relevant to the article, and adds to a balance of facts that constitutes an NPOV.Nambo (talk) 11:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PLease don't proxy for a banned user. If you wish to delete that material, please indicate why you wish to remove it, independently per WP:BAN. What content have you restored? In this case material has been removed. You appear to be randomly redoing Hkelkar's edits. Relata refero (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I now feel it is prudent to show other users of your editing patterns particularly concerning removal of sourced content in Hindu articles. There must be an underlying prejudice or personal opinion underlying your zeal in keeping lots of information out. [5][6] [7][8] [9]. Your valiant upholding of WP policy on the removal of banned users edits for obvious reasons in this case, actually takes away from the encyclopedia in this instance.Nambo (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't spam talkpages. I have already responded to this concern here. Relata refero (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History section?

It seems really odd that there is no historical perspective to this article. A one sentence intro and BAM!! suddenly you're in the midst of modern examples. It's jarring, at a minimum, and seems rather POV in the selection of examples. Mention should also be made of self-segregation, since not all separate-ness is involuntary and oppressive. Pairadox (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source quote

The following source is used to claim that Christians in India practice the caste system: "Francis Buchanan, Indian Census Record, 1883"

While the source may indeed say that, does the source specifically say that "religious segregation" resulted from this system? If it does, can someone provide the quote? Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship

BS, stop this disruption. This is obviously censorship, as you are removing well sourced highly appropiate material only because it counters your agenda. YahelGuhan (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This material was discussed a long time ago here. The exclusion of this material is supported by Relata refero, Itaqallah and ofcourse myself. Now I agree that consensus can change, but in order for that to happen, you need to make convincing arguments for its inclusion.
P.S. don't make personal attacks, by claiming I have an "agenda".Bless sins (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a vote. Your friends agreeing with you does not make a consensus. And when editing constantly shows pushing the same POV, even when incorrect, as your editing does, that editor has an agenda. Its not a personal attack; it is a description of your editing behaviour. YahelGuhan (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"[My] friends"? "pushing the same POV"? "that editor has an agenda"? You have yet to present any argument that the above is not original research, as two other users besides me agree it was. Please respond to my arguments here.Bless sins (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two of your friends agree with you. Both consistantly agree with you, and rarely agree with me, therefore I assume they are your friends. There is nothing WP:OR about the section; there are plenty of satisfactory good sources in the section, and it never should have been removed. This is censorship on your part. YahelGuhan (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please contribute to the discussion in a manner that doesn't include attacking other contributors? Also, let's not get sidetracked into unproductive and speculative arguments about agendas. As I said in my comments in March, find some reliable sources specifically connecting the issue to the topic of the article. ITAQALLAH 22:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that Yahel thinks his argument is in the refs he provides. And while I think not all of his additions are topical to religious segregation (some are more discrimination and persecution) some are: barring people from entering/living in a country based on religion for instance. I don't see why they should be removed alltogether. Str1977 (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now reviewed the section above. And I don't see a consensus - just various opinions. Itaqallah for that matter seems way more nuanced than BS, acknowledging that some is includable and some not.
Yahel, don't let anyone provoke you into outbursts. Especially if it's not true that Itaqallah agreed with BS. Str1977 (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources talk about "religious segregation". How can a source mention something, without even referring to it? Some users are interpreting different facts of life as "religious segregation", thus violating OR. Oh, btw, what brings you here?Bless sins (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is religious segregation in the sources. But maybe that is hard to see if you think Christian prayer is a crime. Str1977 (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well the law is the law. On wikipedia, I don't question French and German laws that strip women of the Islamic scarf, so I don't really want others questioning the laws banning Christian prayer. Which sources mention "religious segregation"? Can you provide the quote?Bless sins (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well no, the law is not the law. Sometimes laws are unlawful. And yes you can criticize the French law and even the (non-identical) German laws all day long. Even on WP. And if some anti-Muslim bigot came along and told you that Muslima wearing a head scarf are criminals, I would say the same to him.
The sources have already been presented above where you can read it.
All the things mentioned are discrimination. It is segreation when people are of different religions are kept apart or kept out of a place or kept in a place. Str1977 (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sources were hotly disputed. Unless you quote the specific place where "religious segregation" is mentioned, I'll assume that they don't mention it at all. The last two users who made this argument (the blocked Preseter John, and recently Yahel Guhan) both failed to provide such quotes. Maybe you can do better?Bless sins (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stop this nonsense. No source has to "specificly" say the words "religious segregation" for something to be relevant. That is just attemped censorship. The sources make it obvious that they are talking about segregation. YahelGuhan (talk) 04:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, for entering into the "arena", I just want to say a couple of things and then leave peacefully. First, I am not an expert on the field, but from a quick look on Google Books and in JSTOR, religious segregation in Muslim countries seems to be typical. Therefore, it needs to be in the article. Second, I agree with the administrators that the related paragraph(s) with the supported references and the way it is written is very bad. So... I think (not that it matters.. but anyway) that it needs a very careful major rewrite supported by international reports + books from notable scholars. That is all... Enjoy Life! A.Cython (talk) 05:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mecca and Medina religious exclusion

Only Muslims may enter the cities of Mecca or Medina. Non-Muslims may not enter; this is "strictly prohibited" [10]. The highway through Mecca is not available to non-Muslims; they must take a bypass through Jeddah. This practice is defended as Mohammad declared that Mecca and Medina should be "safe places" for Muslims. This exclusivity is codified and enforced by the Saudi government. - Keith D. Tyler 19:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was in the article at one time, but some people keep removing it, claiming it's not religious segregation... Drunkayatollah (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...And Israel has Jewish-only settlements in the West-Bank. And France will throw out Muslim girls from the school who dare to follow their religion (by covering their hair).
You haven't found a reliable source calling this "religious segregation", nor have I found one calling accusing Israel and France of such. So until then, let's both keep such content out of the article.Bless sins (talk) 01:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
utter nonsense. It never should have been removed, and only whitewashing can be blamed for such strict and unrealistic and incorrect interpritations of policy. No policy, as far as I am aware, states that the sources must specificly state that it is "religious segregation" for it to be relevant and sourced to this article. But since you wish to make that arguement, I suppose you will have no objection if I choose to remove Anti-Arabism#Israel, as none of the sources there specificly state it is "anti-Arabism", and I suppose you have no objection to me removing the first paragraph of Islam and antisemitism#Spain either, as that has the exact same problem. YahelGuhan (talk) 03:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"No policy, as far as I am aware, states that the sources must specificly state that it is "religious segregation" for it to be relevant and sourced to this article." Perhaps you missed Wikipedia:No original research: "... to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." (emphasis theirs) ITAQALLAH 18:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Directly related does not mean specificly states. Something can easily be directly related to the topic without specificly stating it is related to the topic. Therefore information on examples of discrimination against non-muslims is directly related to this topic, even if it doesn't specificly say the words "discrimination" or "segregation." YahelGuhan (talk) 03:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Directly related does not mean specificly states." - yes it does - if the source doesn't relate it specifically to the topic, then it's original research. ITAQALLAH 00:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Something can easily be directly related to the topic without specifically stating it is related to the topic." Huh? What sort of logic is that? So I can talk about USA without using the words "America", "United States", "States", and other widely used terms for the country?
Also please note this article is not "religious discrimination". It's "religious segregation". Secondly, even if we do include examples of discrimination, they have to be just that, "discrimination".Bless sins (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of corse you can. It is quite easy to talk about America without mentioning the country name itself. Heck, I just did it in the second part of my response.
Segregation is, by definition, a type of discrimination where one thing is excluded from another. Just like in the past blacks were segregated from white areas in many areas, non-muslims are segregated from the city of Mecca, where muslims only are allowed. YahelGuhan (talk) 04:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then in your opinion, religious segregation happens when Israel builds Jewish settlements (which separate the Jews from the Muslim and Christian Arabs). It'd also happen when non-Catholics are not allowed in the Sistine Chapel during the Papal_conclave. This seems to be OR.Bless sins (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. Israel builds Israeli settlements, which are open to all Israelies (Jew, Christian, Muslim, or other). Only Palestinians (Jew, Christian, Muslim, or other) are not allowed. Anyway, you are repeating the old, well what about this, arguement. You want to add a metion about the Sistine Chapel, do so. Just make sure you have a source for doing so (and an op-ed is acceptable as long as it isn't disputed). YahelGuhan (talk) 05:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Yahel, can you provide me the definition of "religious segregation" (and the source). I'm just curious as to what the official definition of the term is.Bless sins (talk) 05:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well... actually this term is so simple that there is no official definition (at least I am not aware of it)... But, here is the definition of the word "segregation" along with some sources:
  • The process of separating a group of people from others. Example:There is a segregation of the sexes in male and female changing rooms. [11]
  • The separation or isolation of a portion of a community or a body of persons from the rest. [12] Oxford dictionary
  • And here is the definition of racial segregation from Britannica: the practice of restricting people to certain circumscribed areas of residence or to separate institutions (e.g., schools, churches) and facilities (parks, playgrounds, restaurants, restrooms) on the basis of race or alleged race. If you simply substitute race with religion you know what religious segregation is.
Finally, in WP at the introduction there is a definition: Religious segregation involves the separation of people on the basis of religion. which is in agreement with the above stated. I hope this will help. A.Cython (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A.Cython, the dictionary contains the definition of hand, ground, kill etc. In other words there is no word "so simple that there is no official definition". That said, I wasn't necessarily looking for a dictionary definition, per WP:NOTDICDEF. Yet the failure for users to provide even a dictionary defintion just goes to show that how important it is for us to not "use the definition of the word" to decide what is "religious segregation" and what is not. Religious segregation exists wherever reliable sources say it exists, and not where we think it exists.Bless sins (talk) 00:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's put the facts on the table, shall we? If there is no "religious segregation" on the dictionary then what is the point that this (whole) article to be in WP in the first place. Second the dictionary (as far as I know) is about single words (exemption is the phrasal words i.e. "stand by" etc) and not about two words. An example will help e.g. "red", "ball" and not "red ball". Please forgive me my English are not perfect, but what I meant as "simple" in my previous post was that this phrase does not need a separate entry in the dictionary, since with just the definitions of the two words "religious" and "segregation" you can understand the meaning. In other words I would be surprised if you find a dictionary definition of a "red ball" or "religious segregation". Now, I have seen papers in journals that explicitly use this term "religious segregation" and I can spent some time to gather them and present them. Finally, I fail to see how people can disagree with the following statement: "Religious segregation is the practice of restricting people to certain circumscribed areas of residence or to separate institutions (e.g., schools, churches) and facilities (parks, playgrounds, restaurants, restrooms) on the basis of religion or alleged religion." A.Cython (talk) 10:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
' Now, I have seen papers in journals that explicitly use this term "religious segregation" ' That is exactly what I'm looking for. I'm looking for one (or possibly two) sources that define this term. I completely understand your argument as to why this isn't in the dictionary (and I've said that I wasn't just looking for one per WP:NOTDICDEF). If you could present atleast one source that'd be great.Bless sins (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A.Cython, have you posted the definition from "papers in journals", as I can't seem to find it?Bless sins (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my system of counting, "religious segregation" is not one word, but two. That would make it a phrase, not a word. So to define the phrase, barring idioms, we take the definitions of each word and apply them to each other. The word "segregation" is the noun form of the verb "segregate", which is defined as: "to separate or set apart from others or from the main body or group; isolate". The word "religious" is the adjectival form of "religion", which I assume needs no definition (but for the record is defined as "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience"). Now, an adjective modifies a noun, so if we put the definitions together, it means "to separate or set apart from others based on religion".

Of course, your question was rhetorical, an inroad perhaps to argue that the definition of the phrase is open to interpretation such that it can be selectively not applied based on excuses, justifications or personal interest -- as you have repeatedly tried to do here and elsewhere. So answering it is another fruitless exercise. But, I'm a good Wikipedian, and I make an effort to AGF, even when I have very serious doubts. - Keith D. Tyler 17:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emm... the first part of your answer is great, it will help us to know what belongs in the article and what does not, but I am slightly confused by your 2nd part of your answer Keith D. Tyler....
  • "as you have repeatedly tried to do here and elsewhere": what this suppose to mean? I only tried to offer some help here between the disagreement between Bless sins and YahelGuhan... and what have I done elsewhere?
  • "So answering it is another fruitless exercise." There was an argument here, so it was needed. And how exactly your definition is significantly different from the one I have provided? Or even how the one I have provided is based on "based on excuses, justifications or personal interest"?
  • "I'm a good Wikipedian" I do not doubt that, but how this is related with the topic? Or do you imply that we are not good Wikipedians?
  • "I make an effort to AGF, even when I have very serious doubts." you are not the only one. Enjoy Life! A.Cython (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"the phrase is open to interpretation such that it can be selectively not applied based on excuses, justifications or personal interest" No, the phrase can't be applied because of lack of reliable sources supporting its applicability. If you call poor sourcing an "excuse" to delete material, then know that this "excuse" in enshrined in wiki policies.Bless sins (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"If you call poor sourcing an "excuse" to delete material": Emmm... I saw the 7 sources and they do not seem poor to me... maybe they are not the best or extra sources needed but they are not poor. Do you have sources supporting the contrary? If not then the section about Muslim segregation (I think) should stay. Also, we need to re-write it in an non-provocative way i.e. "religious apartheid" I am sure we can say the same thing without this quote. Enjoy Life! A.Cython (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The standard of sourcing is poor, because they do not explicitly verify what people here are trying to establish. Ultimately it's original research and an unverified synthesis of sources. ITAQALLAH 00:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And dhimmi.com is not a reliable source. ITAQALLAH 00:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They do verify it, and they are not poor. Second, it is not, in any way, shape, or form WP:SYNTH. YahelGuhan (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Presuming your assertion is correct, where precisely is the source asserting religious segregation? ITAQALLAH 12:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Itaqallah. A.Cython can you show that your 7 sources are accusing the Muslim world of "religious segregation". Please quote them directly.Bless sins (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the statement that there are no reliable sources showing suitability for inclusion is disingenuous. Plenty of sources -- including one picture which has also incurred this contention -- have shown the crucial matter: that persons are allowed or denied entry into Mecca and Medina based on the their religion. As I have shown, this is precisely the definition of "religious segregation"; to wit, "to separate or set apart from others based on religion" (as above). And moreover, you and others who fight this inclusion admit that this segregation based on religion does happen -- but repeatedly, opponents of inclusion have put up non-relevant arguments such as that it is done to save lives, it is just like border security (or other form of discrimination X or Y) or that the excluded people do not have a "good reason" to be there. The current leg on which the exclusion argument stands is the assertion that no non-opinion sources have been presented that explicitly say "Non-Muslim exclusion from [Mecca/Medina] is [discrimination/segregation]" (though [13] would seem to challenge that assertion effectively). But when we have an unambiguous definition of the term, as we now do, trying to place such a pedantically explicit barrier is merely a filibuster. The example fits the definition of the term -- therefore, it is applicable for the article -- and, to avoid repeating myself elsewhere, likewise for Portal:Discrimination. - Keith D. Tyler 22:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Filibustering would imply delaying the inevitable. The content is in fundamental violation of core content policies, and on that basis it should be nowhere near mainspace. The sources used (the reliable ones, that is) simply do not say what you want them to. Many of them speak in very specific contexts, but are generalised and imputed upon the "Muslim world." These issues must be addressed. ITAQALLAH 17:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
simply do not say what you want them to Yes, they do. They say that people are allowed into or excluded from two entire cities based wholly and solely on religion. And no one actually disputes that this is happening. So there is no WP:NPOV reason to exclude. Opposing inclusion of an entire topic due to personal interest/opinion is what is in "fundamental violation" of core policies. - Keith D. Tyler 15:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Keith D. Tyler A.Cython (talk) 07:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keith Tyler, the only source you've presented ([14]) is not a reliable one. If you want I can take this to WP:RSN. BTW, even the unreliable source makes no allegation of religious segregation. Keith, why are you (and some other wikipedians) the only persons on the face of earth to accuse the Mecca/Medina of "religious segregation"? Why can't you find a scholar to say what you are saying?Bless sins (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your justification for censorship just gets more and more rediculous. First you claim no scholar makes the arguement, now you say nobody does. Obviously people do. There are reliable sources which are presented which make the arguement. Stop repeating yourself to justify your revert warring censorship. YahelGuhan (talk) 07:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop the uncivil combative rhetoric. Why don't you show us the reliable sources unequivocally asserting 'religious segregation'? ITAQALLAH 17:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would have said the same thing, but slightly different... "Please stop removing sourced text"... anyway, here is an article from WP with more reliable sources... Status of religious freedom in Saudi Arabia... It is funny and sad on how people define reliable sources, especially when people do not agree with them. This is not an attack to Muslims anything related... In fact Europe was religiously segregated for centuries during the Middle Ages, while the Muslim world was by far more tolerant to different religions... but things changed and will change etc etc... Enjoy Life! PS: Are there any sources that claim that there is no religious segregation in the Muslim world? if not then under weight WP:NPOV#Undue weight the text+sources should stay... A.Cython (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One is at full liberty to remove 'sourced' text if it violates core content policies like Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research - which it does in this case. It certainly isn't too much to ask that content adheres to these aforementioned policies. But the present state is that we don't have a single reliable source asserting "religious segregation" - the criteria for determining reliability can be seen here - sources like "dhimmi.com" fall well short. Lastly, you said: "Are there any sources that claim that there is no religious segregation in the Muslim world?" - see negative proof. If you see the very first sentence of WP:UNDUE it specifies material published by reliable sources. ITAQALLAH 00:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but I am still puzzled... First, the sources do talk about religious segregation, in the Muslim world! just read them... and there is no need to bring WP policies to discard a whole section due to a single not reliable source. Second, the negative proof only proves my point, that is: there are reliable sources that state X, but there are no sources stating -X (or at least I am not aware of them). Now you remove the text because you claim -X... so? Who violates WP policies? And please, if you still insist sources from scholars talking about religious segregation, well here is one source:

This deficiency is explained partly by Islam's aversion to public ostentation and partly by its insistence on religious and ethnic segregation.

well? A.Cython (talk) 01:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Negative proof means you can't use arguments like "Are there any sources that claim that there is no religious segregation in the Muslim world?" - because they are fallacious. "Religious segregation" is a notion that must be positively proven, it is not assumed until disproven.
The sources used in the article are either a) unreliable, or b) do not state religious segregation. Furthermore, as has been said numerous times, they generalise specific incidences mentioned by the sources - in violation of WP:SYN and WP:NOR. Lastly, can you tell us what context Nabia Abbott is talking in? It doesn't look like she's actually talking about Mecca. I will assume you merely overlooked the discussion of Islam's "reorganisation and desegregation" on the next page. ITAQALLAH 08:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is the sources for me a) are reliable enough, b) they do describe segregation based on religious reasons, c) they do not seem to violate the WP:SYN and WP:NOR policies.

Now for the negative proof, I am not using it to support my arguments on the contrary, the person(s) who remove the text by claiming that it is not true, do not present not even a single reliable source to support their claims. So if you have one one hand reliable sources and we do have and on the other nothing then I would choose the hand with the sources. Finally, I must apologized but placing policies in my face all the time without open-minded discussing the issue at hand makes me and others to think the existence of a hidden agenda. Now if you do have a problem with one or two sources used then we can remove them, meaning the text stays (but.. we edit it as well). If you are unable to provide sources to support the contrary and do not present specifically (and not speaking in general) why the sources used are unreliable then I will have to assume that you are un-constructive editor!

As for the source... I should have said before this quote is from the review that I have provided, which summarizes the contents of the book. Now the context is the following:

This chapter deals with origins, structure and evolution or regression of the various types of Islamic cities widely scattered in space and time. One is confronted with the anomaly of a city-minded faith that nevertheless produces cities markedly deficient in organized municipal life. This deficiency is explained partly by Islam's aversion to public ostentation and partly by its insistence on religious and ethnic segregation.

In other words it talks about the whole Muslim world, once I have the book on my hand I will post more details.A.Cython (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"widely scattered in space and time" In other words there is no specific mention here.
Also if you look at the end of review, it talks about "Islam's recent efforts at city re-organization and desegregation". (Recent would be referring to the 1950s).
Finally as his book was published in 1959, it doesn't appear to be relevant to modern day issues.Bless sins (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"the person(s) who remove the text by claiming that it is not true, do not present not even a single reliable source to support their claims" - That is untrue, A.Cython - I never made any statement about whether it was "true" or not.
A.Cython, let's go through each source one by one and you can show me exactly how the content is verified:
  • This source is about religious freedoms of non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia, less so about 'religious segregation.' It certainly is not appropriate for the sentence cited: "Religious segregation occurs throughout the Muslim world, where nations such as Saudi Arabia deny non-Muslims some of the civil rights and voting privileges they grant to Muslims." - especially the first clause which is complete OR. As was said, denial of civil rights or voting may be religious discrimination - it is not segregation per se.
  • This source is about discrimination in Iran. It is cited to this sentence: "Many Muslim countries consign non-Muslim monotheists to the status of dhimmis, both officially and by custom." The document makes no generalised assertion of "many Muslim countries", and no mention of "dhimmis" or "segregation." We see a pattern of OR emerging - but apparently you fail to recognise this. Shall we continue?
  • The next source is this one, about human rights in Iran. The sentence it cites is: "There have been reports of imprisonment, harassment, intimidation, and discrimination based on religious beliefs" - extremely generalised OR-ish statement, conveniently fails to acknowledge that the source is talking about Iran, giving the impression that the discussion is about the "Muslim world" in general. And how is this specifically pertinent to the issue of religious segregation as opposed to religious discrimination?
  • The next sentence is "In fact until March 1, 2004, the official Saudi government website stated that Jews were forbidden from even entering the country." - sourced to a different source talking about a different country. One can see the narrative being weaved here (such as by the "in fact" caveat, which is unencyclopedic and tendentious language) linking isolated issues, chopping and changing between sources, and presenting them as systemic issues.
  • It gets worse. The next passage is thus: "Saudi Arabia in particular is notorious for very stringent religious laws banning the practice of non-Muslim religions, even prescribing imprisonment and the death penalty for attempting to convert Muslims to other religions." - The source for which is: [15] - which doesn't even mention non-Muslims, let alone attempted conversion to other religions. The sentence is completely unverified and OR, A.Cython. And, as before, this has nothing to do with religious segregation.
  • The next assertion is the only one of real relevance to the article topic, which pertains to the city of Mecca. But, as has been discussed, there are no sources asserting "religious segregation."
  • As for the "dhimmi.com" source, which reports the claim of religious apartheid, I'm sure we can all see that it's not a reliable source.
Lastly for the quoted source above - I think you can see that "various types of Islamic cities widely scattered in space and time" is extremely vague, unspecific, and the exact scope is undetermined - especially in light of the desegregation mentioned later. This does not justify the content you insist on reinserting, as I have conclusively shown above. In fact, there have been major problems with almost all of the sentences. With all due respect, to claim that you see no OR or SYN problems suggests you did not scratch beyond the surface, as suspect as it was. ITAQALLAH 22:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, for your replies, they will help us to resolve the issue and if possible we get something positive.
  • The first issue that I noticed, is that you make a black&white distinction between discrimination and segregation... I disagree! It is not a black&white distinction. You cannot segregate a mixed population with discriminating first! Sure one or two cases of discrimination does not mean segregation, but a significant number of discriminations over time does. And please note, segregation can be achieved with two ways: direct and indirect. Direct = placing a wall between communities or by force prohibiting someone or a group to live or access an area based on their beliefs. Indirect = by not permitting someone to find a job, or reduced salary, or wealth/class/political restrictions, or prohibit education etc etc based on your beliefs. But, to be perfectly honest with you I wouldn't like to use these sources either, not because they are not reliable enough, but I would prefer more academic sources, rather than say Amnesty International or US government etc etc
  • The last point i.e. "dhimmi.com" I am with you. 1000% I agree it must go out, along with the phrase "religious apartheid". Even if it is true (but I doubt that), it is too much for an encyclopedia.
  • About the book I mentioned above... still I haven't managed to get it, but it does not mean it is irrelevant with the topic. It mentions that during the evolution of the Muslim cities religious segregation became an important factor in the Muslim life. As I said once I have the book I will post details. Now, Bless sins mentioned that the book is from 1959, so? The WP article should be about "Religious Segregation" and not "Religious Segregation Today", this also allows me to make another point: The article needs some historical background and not isolated examples here and there. For example here are some points that need to be mentioned:
  • Polytheism versus Monotheism In polytheism it is unlikely to generate religious conflicts because everyone believe in the existence of many Gods. So one believe in his/her Gods accepting (but necessary believing) the existence of the Gods of some other culture. There is no surprise that in antiquity there any religious wars. However, with monotheism, one believes in one God, the true God, all other are fake... e.g. "I am God and there is no other" (Isaiah 45:18,22), "you shall have no other Gods before me" (Exodus 20:3)... It is not hard to see that monotheism's nature is to pick a quarrel (please I mean no offense) [ref: M. Cook, "A brief History of the human race" p.135-141].
  • The history of Religious segregation through time:
    • Romans (Pagans) vs Early Christians (Late antiquity)
    • Christians vs Pagans (Middle ages)
    • Christians vs Muslims vs Jews (Middle ages)
    • Catholics vs Protestants
    • etc etc
But, here are more books talking about religious segregation in the Muslim world...
Overall, i think the text about the Muslim world and in fact the article as whole needs a re-write/clean up; also a clear definition (given by Keith D. Tyler) but with further explanations to avoid misunderstandings, a history/origins section, and how it manifests today in different parts of the world i.e. Europe, Middle East, India, etc etc I know this is a sensitive subject, but if we manage to create a to-do list OR guideline on how this article could evolve it would be great. A.Cython (talk) 03:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"It is not hard to see that monotheism's nature is to pick a quarrel" - quite a strange comment considering that pagans persecuted Christians in the Roman Empire. Str1977 (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the issues discussed by the sources used in the disputed section are about discrimination i.e. voting rights, harrassment, persecution. Thus it is - generally speaking - irrelevant to the specific topic of segregation, and employing ones own interpetations may constitute original research. Yes, the two may overlap (as segregation is one form of discrimination), but that does not seem to be the case in the sources I highlighted above.
Secondly, any sources that are to be used should specifically discuss segregation by name. What isn't appropriate is for us to obtain a 'definition' and then search for sources to apply it to - this is specifically highlighted in WP:SYN. As long as we accept that the section as it stands is inappropriate for an encyclopedia, then we can work towards developing high quality content which is specific and appropriate to the historical context. Regards, ITAQALLAH 17:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's an unreasonable expectation. The sources hould address segregation but they need not use the term (and one of our sources actually says "apartheid" which is an even stronger, loaded term for a form of segregation). We need neither obtain a definition because the words alreary give them to us: we know what segregation means and we know what religious means. Str1977 (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say it's an unreasonable expectation at all - it's well grounded in policy. Any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be properly cited and attributed to a reliable, published source - as stated in WP:V. The source you allude to is, as you know, unreliable - and hence not significant here. ITAQALLAH 22:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what one might think about the issue, deleting an entire section is in no way appropriate. Notwithstanding that "censorship" usually is quite an uncivil term, the deletion of an entire section concerned with one's own religion certainly suggests that conclusion.

It is uncivil here as well, as is baselessly bringing people's religion into the discussion. I think I've shown quite conclusively above that virtually every passage in the section violates core content policy - please feel free to address the concerns I raised. I am certainly not against a well sourced section on the topic, but as it stands the material is completely unencyclopedic. ITAQALLAH 22:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with your logic that the sources are only for discrimination rather than segregation. With your logic, there was no genocide in WWII since the Germans only killing individual Jews. Besides, at the sources that I presented do have explicitly the phrase religious segregation in the context of being a characteristic of Muslim cities and in one of the books says that under certain conditions it's an unique characteristic. Are they also about discrimination or is this a conspiracy against the Muslims? I think neither! You haven't conclusively showed that violated anything. The text does reflects certain facts, provided by the sources. To a certain degree there is a religious segregation in the Muslim world, you have to accept it. The text only needs to be re-written in a more neutral way with the appropriate sources. So instead of deleting we need to re-write it. So either through some ideas on the table or let others do the editing without deleting their efforts. A.Cython (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: discrimination/segregation, A.Cython, you are simply applying your own personal interpretation which others may not agree with. This is in essence original research.. Please find sources with something more clear cut, so that it's not you or I who is trying to determine what is/isn't segregation. I'm not stopping you from producing a high quality section at all. But please don't suggest that we should keep this unencyclopedic mess of a section - which violates core content policy throughout as is meticulously documented above - while we wait for someone to find the sources for some new content. ITAQALLAH 19:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Now, Bless sins mentioned that the book is from 1959, so?" So, if we ever include that, we must make note that the segregation happened decades ago, and is not talking about today. The current section that keeps on getting included is not talking about historical segregation, but current one.Bless sins (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To str1977: "That's an unreasonable expectation [on demanding that only sources talking about "religious segregation" are relevant]." Str1977, if a source is talking about religious segregation then it will mention it by name. If it doesn't, and there is truly religious segregation, then another source will say that. If no source on planet earth calls an action as "relgious segregation", then maybe there is none.Bless sins (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This section is a joke for several reasons. First of all, the historical scale is skewed and shows BLATANT POV-pushing. It even goes into the history of Mecca back to the 7th century and the time of Muhammad (whereas ALL OTHER things covered in this article are referring to a modern context). Secondly, it says "Muslim" countries subject non-Muslims to the status of "Dhimmi," but it fails to list a single country in which the status of "Dhimmi" retains legal applications. The reader is left to assume that this is characteristic of the entire "Muslim world." Thirdly, Mecca being left as a place for Muslims only doesn't seem like a fair example, since, as said above, it would be like a Muslim demanding that he be given the right to attend certain sensitive papal ceremonies and rituals. There are obviously much more heated and relevant issues with things such as the Dome of the Rock and the Temple Mount or Mosques/Churches in Serbia/Kosovo that would be much better examples than saying that only Muslims can visit the holiest Muslim site. IMO the section should be deleted and started over. -130.74.169.15 (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Look, people! There is a huge difference between a badly written text from a plainly wrong text! Before I start posting here I knew very little about the subject, but the more I read from journals/books and from other scholars it is a plain fact that this articles needs to be re-written from scratch (and that includes the Muslim world)! And it is very difficult to add my personal interpretation when the sources that i have provided very clearly state the existence of religious segregation in the Muslim world! Here I will summarize the key arguments of this section:
(1)The definition has been disputed... I find hard to understand how this can be disputed? If there is no definition, then why there is a WP article about it... should this be an original research? If it means what it means by the union of the words "religious" + "segregation" then we can move on!
(2)Also, everybody would appreciate when people speak based on facts! Here is an example:

...And Israel has Jewish-only settlements in the West-Bank. And France will throw out Muslim girls from the school who dare to follow their religion (by covering their hair). You haven't found a reliable source calling this "religious segregation", nor have I found one calling accusing Israel and France of such. So until then, let's both keep such content out of the article. Bless sins (talk) 01:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

France will throw anyone either Christian, Muslim, or other who carry religious items out of a school! It is not France but the Muslim girls who self-segregate! France is a secular state, for everyone (including Muslims)! [20]
As for Israel... well you haven't search enough! Here are two sources:
  • Stephen Sharot, "Israel: Sociological Analyses of Religion in the Jewish State" Sociological Analysis, Vol. 51, Special Presidential Issue Sociology of Religion: International Perspectives (1990), pp. S63-S76
  • "Residential integration and religious segregation in an Israeli neighborhood." International Journal of Intercultural Relations 13:19-35
(3)User:Itaqallah and Bless sins claimed that there are no academic sources that explicitly link the Islam and "religious segregation" and therefore the text about the Muslim world should be deleted.
  • New reliable sources have been provided (books from scholars), that describe the "religious segregation" (explicitly written) as an organizational feature of Muslim cities from the middle ages till now! In particular, it was considered a positive factor till the end of 19th century, since it was credited for the flourishing cities of the East in the Middle Ages. I have seen no sources that claim it is not a feature anymore (that means even a book from 1959 addresses existing issues of today)! Both editors, User:Itaqallah and Bless sins fail to support their claims/arguments with reliable sources and use WP policies to exclude material from the article. Here is another source found that explicitly state that there is still religious segregation in the Muslim world:
    • Frank J. Costa and Allen G. Noble, "Planning Arabic Towns", Geographical Review, Vol. 76, No. 2, Thematic Issue: Asian Urbanization (Apr., 1986), pp. 160-172, which describes the urban development of the Arabic world in the period 1975-1980 and notes the following:

Ethnic and religious segregation as the basis for identifiable districts is a long-standing morphological feature of an Arab town.

Now User:Itaqallah, said that I am applying my "own personal interpretation which others may not agree with"... well I do not care what others think, all I care is learn about the subject... at least I provide reliable sources that bluntly support my claims, where are your sources? Please, enlighten me! Oh.. and please do not throw another WP policy in my face, thanks in advance.
  • Another two academic sources:
    • it describes how the segregation/fragmentation of an Arabic city affects non-Muslims of today! Georg Glasze "Segregation and seclusion: the case of compounds for western expatriates in Saudi Arabia" DOI 10.1007/s10708-006-9018z
    • an overview of literature about Muslim & Arabic cities: Andre Raymond, "Islamic City, Arab City: Orientalist Myths and Recent Views", British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 21, No. 1 (1994), pp. 3-18
(4)Now, about discrimination versus segregation:
  • My first question is: Suppose that there is no religious segregation, do the following sources considered reliable on the issue of discrimination?
  • Independently, though how you will answer the above question I still fail to see how the cases of discriminations based on religious reasons are not linked with segregation, especially when there are no sources to challenge the fact there is no religious segregation in the Muslim world and at the same time reliable (as they can be) sources make the statement that religious segregation is a characteristic feature of Muslim cities!
(5)I still trying to track some more books from the library...
(6)Finally, I will not get bothered with this article anymore, it is not that the subject is not interesting but rather I am to busy in real life to face sensitive people... but once I encounter other sources I will simply post them for helping the future editors make their edits. Enjoy Life! A.Cython (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A.Cython, I said that the sources used in the article do not state religious segregation. You misrepresent my position when you claim I say there are no sources in existence stating religious segregation. I said provide some reliable sources and we can work from there, but it's not an excuse for restoring something inherently unencyclopedic, as I have documented above. ITAQALLAH 15:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Muslim world

This is about the section within the article and have put this here since it will get lost in the above talk/comments. Reason for its removal before was that it was put there from what an editor has said in the edit summary by a member who is blocked for a number of reasons including sock puppets since then I've noticed it being reverted a number of times. I'm not saying that it should or shouldn't be there but the reverting isn't helping if any more reverting happens I will request that the article to be locked from editing until such time a consenus is made on this issue. Bidgee (talk) 18:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bidgee. The last two people to revert were Itaqallah and Yahel Guhan. Itaqallah is actively engaged in discussion on the talk page. Yahel Guhan reverted without discussing on the talk page. It is clear who is the drive-by reverter, abusing the edit button.Bless sins (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did see that but he best thing to do next time is to revert (don't edit war though) and add a note on their talk page pointing to the discussion, If they fail to talk and revert then it could be taken to AN/I for an Admin to look at it. Bidgee (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like good advice. I have left a message on the talk page.[21] Bless sins (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Canadian Monkey and Yahel Guhan seem to be reverting with generic statements like 'no consensus' (as if the section ever enjoyed consensus in the first place!) or 'rv censorship' without attempting to address the grave flaws of the text itself. ITAQALLAH 15:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking is never an acceptable solution to a source problem or individual snippets of content. Bless Sins and Itaqallah will remove entire sections over one or two sources they don't like. Why does that make sense? How does it fall under WP guidelines? It doesn't, but it's very efficient at keeping Wikipedia from including content on religious segregation in Mecca. As the guidelines for blanking state: Rather than blanking an article, fix it!, or use the deletion process. Wholesale section removal is unorthodox practice. Content improvement -- including finding better sources -- is the preferred action. Instead of working to improve the content, these two work to remove content they don't want to see in WP under any rationale that can pass the barest of sniff tests. This is why this is going on for so long. The content is sound, the sources pass master, but this frivolous dispute continues, eating resources and patience. - Keith D. Tyler 05:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is wrong to blank blatant OR. And Keith Tyler, you've got it wrong when you say "over one or two sources they don't like": all your sources are irrelevant except one (that I've seen thusfar).
Your sources are not sound, as they don't talk about "religious segregation". If they do please, for the nth time, quote them below.Bless sins (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you can find a policy or guideline that says WP:BLANK can be ignored when WP:OR is involved, feel free. But the point of WP:BLANK is pretty clear: removing content is bad practice, improving content is good practice. As for sources, that's a novel criteria for what makes a source "sound". The sources are sound because they are reliable and verifiable and back up the content they are referenced from. If you'd like to invent new guidelines and policies, the place to do that is not here. - Keith D. Tyler 22:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keith, please don't remove {{dubious}} from sentences which I have questioned the factual accuracy and relevance of. I've discussed this source above - this sentence is not verified at all by the source used. I fail to comprehend why you keep removing the tag without even addressing the issue raised. ITAQALLAH 00:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keith, WP:BLANK talks not about removing some information, but about leaving an article totally empty. As far as I see, no one has proposed that. Thus, WP:BLANK is irrelevant here. If the article does run out of content in the near future, then, yes I'll ask for its deletion.
Finally, Keith, why do you always run away from the question: which sources alleges that the Muslim world is practicing "Religious segregation"?Bless sins (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

London and Egypt

Recently content has been added on the UK and Egypt. The source with regards to the UK, [22], specifically talks about "religious segregation". Good job on that.

The source on Egypt, [23], does not such thing. I can't find any mention of "segregation" (religious or otherwise).Bless sins (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. So if a member of an anti-discrimination or cultural group expresses their opinion in an editorial, it's a bad source, but if they express their opinion to a reporter who writes a news story about that opinion, it's perfectly OK. - Keith D. Tyler 20:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops wrong source. This is the source I was talking about. According to the source, this is the "opinion" of "academics" from the University of East London. The article goes on to quote Professor Allan Brimicombe, author of the study, and a professor at the Centre for Geo-Information Studies.[24]
What problem do you have with the source?Bless sins (talk) 04:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

um, im sorry but in which parts of london do these religiously segregated areas exist? there arent any religiously segregated parts in london! people can pray when/how/to whom they like! and anyone else can be right there ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.156.147 (talk) 23:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Please kindly keep unreliable sources out of the article. Here are some I found:

  • Wiki travel. Any open wiki is unreliable.
  • Christianity Today. No more reliable on third party issues than an Islamic website. It looks more like a spiritual website than one that would be a reliable source.

If there are any contentions, we can always take them up at WP:RSN.Bless sins (talk) 04:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any minor, trivial, incidential reason to entirely remove a self-explanatory, unambiguous image that you don't like people seeing will do, it seems. - Keith D. Tyler 15:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, you are opposing references for the caption and as a result you remove the entire image -- not just the caption. There's reasonable limits to AGF. You've had enough WP experience to know that's not the proper action. If your goal is just to clean up refs, the proper method would be to remove the refs, or mark the content as dubious, or remove the caption. But for some reason, you remove the entire picture. What's the GF rationale there?- Keith D. Tyler 15:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Christianity Today: It's not a fringe outlet, but a published magazine catering to a particular demographic. That doesn't make it unreliable. Furthermore, the use of the citation was to show a published source that uses the term "religious apartheid" and to what it applies it. The statement it backed up was: The similar term religious apartheid has also been used for situations where people are separated based on religion. Thus, to back up the statement, a reference where the term "religious apartheid" was used for a situation where people are separated based on religion. Are you saying that the Christianity Today article did not use the term "religious apartheid" or that it did not use the term to describe separation based on religion? Do I need to have an additional source that says "Christianity Today used the term 'religious apartheid' to describe a situation where people are separated based on religion" ? Do I need yet a third source that says "source B says 'Christianity Today used the term "religious apartheid" to describe a situation where people are separated based on religion'"? No, of course not, because the best source for that assertion is to show where Christianity Today used that term to describe that situation. When citing attributions, the only valid cite is that where the attributed statement is made. If an article were to say "The National Enquirer said that aliens invented the transistor", the proper cite would be to a National Enquirer article where it says that aliens invented the transistor. Despite the fact that the NE is by an large an arguably unreliable source, this not only a valid cite, but the best cite for the content's assertion. - Keith D. Tyler 16:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"That doesn't make it unreliable." That doesn't make it reliable either. Not all published sources are reliable. As per WP:V the burden of evidence (to provide a reliable source, and demonstrate its reliability) lies with you (see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence).Bless sins (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can always attribute it to the source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But that's only true when the source is reliable. Unreliable sources have no place in wikipedia (except maybe on thier own pages), don't you agree? BTW, the sources you restored are not at all about segregation, let alone a religious one.Bless sins (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. We need WP:V verifiable and reliable sources. Why these are not reliable in your view? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By "these" I assume you mean the ones bieng discussed in this section. One of them seems to be a biased sourced and the other, well, is an open wiki that anyone can edit. Secondly, please note, both the sources were removed and replaced. So what's the dispute about? (Jossi, if you're referring to the sources in my recent edits, I never claimed they were unreliable, only that they didn't say what is claimed here. Please see the section "OR", regarding that).Bless sins (talk) 03:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sandra Mackey

In her book, The Saudis, Sandra Mackey describes her experience at Mecca. She does not make any large sweeping claims of "segregation" on the basis of religion. She talks of a "dividing line", but explains that she if talking about religion being an "entire way of life".

Secondly, I'd like to know why Mackey is considered a reliable source. If it is simply on the basis of personal experience, then that doesn't seem reliable enough to make generalization.Bless sins (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has some critical issues

1. The current section on Boznia and Herzegovina mentions nothing about religion. Earlier versions mentioned the seperation of Croats, Serbs and Bozniaks.

2. The section on India has nothing to do with "religious segregation" as it does not involve the seperation or segregation of one religion from another. Rather, it is on the seperation of different groups of people as prescribed by religious principles. As such it is more analogous to the segregation of sexes found in Orthodox Judaism, Islam and Christianity than to "religious segregation."

3. Requiring Baha'i educators to renounce their faith to teach is not a form of "segregation" but of discrimination. It would consitutue actual segregation if Baha'i educators could only teach in certain schools, such as those intended for Baha'i students.

4. There is a glaring lack of information on historical forms of segregation such as restricting to Jews to ghettos in premodern Europe. Further, nothing is mentioned on the seperation of Catholics and Protestants. Evaniax (talk) 21:06, February 6, 2009 (UTC)

UK Segregation, seriously?

First of all, this: [25] isn't a good article, second of all ... it doesn't make any sense unless you twist the definition of segregation to mean anything other than a homogeneous community with a Muslim, Catholic, Sikh, Hindu, Black, Asian, European and disabled person on every block. You can't call it segregation if no one is enforcing it, if Muslims live in the same communities as other Muslims, if *any* minority tends to lives in a community together, it's NOT SEGREGATION. Get this garbage off the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.97.108 (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iran

I don't religious discrimination is necessarily the same thing as religious segregation. Religious segregation is to separate - in space - people by religion. Discriminating against people based on religion (e.g. by giving them a lower salary) is not segregation. If it was, then the US would be guilty of gender segregation, because women make less money than men.Wheatsing (talk) 06:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UK is on there but Israel IS NOT?

Seriously. BY LAW is one of the key tenets of segregation! Iranian Muslims do not choose, Saudi Arabian Muslims do not choose, Muslims in Israel do not choose. British Muslims DO choose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.107.222 (talk) 12:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Religious segregation. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 23:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Religious segregation. 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:

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) 22:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Religious segregation. 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:

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: 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) 15:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hearsay for citation 38?

Is the accusation in citation 38 allowed to be on Wikipedia, since no evidence supporting this claim is given? 189.206.144.172 (talk) 00:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: INFO 200 Selected Topics in Information Literacy - Wikipedia

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jnuhanovich2 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Zapn7, QUMCEB.

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Religious_segregation"