Talk:Dhimmitude/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

npov tag

I think the npov tag should remain on the article until all issues are resolved.VolunteerMarek 18:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes I agree.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Reversion

I reverted the article back to where Altetendekrabbe removed the POV tag. At that point it was clear there was significant agreement between both sides of this dispute. Let's scrap the rancor that happened just after that point. Now then, Altetendekrabbe, there seem to be two points of contention left. 1) Adding more sidebars and 2) removing Anders Breivik. I don't think we need any more sidebars. This article is relatively small and it wouldn't do to have it turn into a side-bar-o-rama. For removing Breivik, I see the point. I can go either way. -- Frotz(talk) 22:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

thanks again. regarding breivik: the source gives a full quote of him. if that's enough for inclusion, i really dunno. i don't have any strong opinions about this issue either. more comments are needed. regarding the sidebar issue i think a third opinion or a request for comment is needed. in my opinion, the page is better off without any sidebars. however, since the page now complies more or less to npov, it's not really a burning issue. i'll come back to it later on.-- altetendekrabbe  22:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I still think book reviews about durie should be included in the article as the sources talk specifically about this issue.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Also Tibi is misrepresented as he clearly use the word "inferior" in his writing and that dhimmutude is " this is a violation of the human rights-based freedom of faith" this should be fixed too.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

With regard to Durie I think we've reached consensus to keep it out.

With regard to Breivik - it's a reliable high quality source, it directly supports the text that is being included, it is obviously notable (the fact that breivik used the term and how he used it), and it is relevant. So I really don't see any reason for removal except some kind of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT

With regard to the side bar - the underlying problem is that the very subject of this article, "Dhimmitude" is a POV-loaded term itself, usually used by people with a particular ideology. Part of that ideology/POV is the view that Muslims always and everywhere discriminate against non-Muslims and that this discrimination is captured by this term. But once again - this is just a POV of a particular ideology. If this sidebar was text we could properly attribute it (so and so says that Dhimmitude reflects discrimination etc.) But with a sidebar we cannot do this. Since we cannot properly attribute a sidebar the only recourse is simply to remove it. This is the same as if someone tried to put an "Apartheid" side bar in the article on Israel or something - it'd be POV, just like it is here. In fact, given the generally fringe usage of the term, by fringe folks, an "Islamophobia" sidebark would make a ton more sense than the "Discrimination side bar".

VolunteerMarek 18:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus on that there at least on scholarly sources that specifically talks about dhimmitude.

Dhimmutude only mention in scarce in the whole article

The term is used by scholar not Grifith nor Tibi are fringe--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm having a bit of trouble understanding what you are saying. You seem to be intent on invoking "no consensus" (as in, "me and my buddies will keep on revert warring on this to the end") as a way of disrupting this article - essentially a version of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. As it happens, neither WP:IDON'TLIKEIT nor "consensus" (the policy explicitly says that consensus cannot be held hostage) trumps WP:NPOV and WP:RS which are not just policies but also fundamental pillars.

I didn't say anything about Grifith nor Tibi for now, and I certainly did not say these guys were fringe (if that is the meaning of your last non-grammatical sentence).VolunteerMarek 19:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You said that is was used only by fringe scholar which is entirely not true.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Please bother to read what I said again. I said no such thing.VolunteerMarek 19:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

@marek, i fully agree on that. there should be no bars. the discrimination-bar should not be present due to the reasons you menioned, while the islamophobia-bar would not be fair to people like griffith. i think the current version without any bars is the one that complies best with npov. my two cents. @frotz, is it ok for you that we go for rfc?-- altetendekrabbe  19:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

An Islamophobia sidebar in Dhimmitude would be akin to a "white people phobia" sidebar in Jim Crow or White supremacy. -- Frotz(talk) 23:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Uh... what? VolunteerMarek 23:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. "Leukophobia" didn't sound right, "leukoanthrophobia" is weirder still, and "crackerphobia" is a racist term itself. -- Frotz(talk) 01:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

As I already explained above, the problem is that the term "Dhimmitude" is itself a POV term. Which is why an Islamophobia side bar would make sense - AFAIK it's mostly (if not only) Islamophobes who use it. That's a completely different situation than "Jim Crow".VolunteerMarek 01:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Saying that only Islamophobes use the term would tend to presume that attacks on non-Muslims for being non-Muslims either doesn't exist or is extremely rare. In fact there are constant reports of attacks. The most common of these seem to be against Egyptian Copts. Furthermore, the term "Islamophobia" is POV because very valid criticism of Islam are frequently labeled as Islamophobia. -- Frotz(talk) 01:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it presumes nothing of the kind. These "attacks" whether real or imagined are a complete red herring to the usage of the term "Dhimmitude" by Islamophobes.VolunteerMarek 17:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

frotz, we are not discussing attacks on non-muslims by muslims...of course there are such attacks. we're discussing this neologism. as marek correctly points out, the term is highly controversial and disputed, especially the bat ye'orian definition of the term, which refers to discrimination. her definition is indeed faulty and insulting, ironically reflecting anti-Muslim sentiment more than muslim discrimination of non-muslims. hence, you find the charges of islamophobia. however, i suggest not to include the islamophobia-bar, nor the discrimination-bar. like i said earlier, the article complies best with npov without the bars at all. none of these bars are fair to griffith. let the readers read and judge by themselves.-- altetendekrabbe  08:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

This definition is used by other scholars like I pointed earlier.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Back to Breivik - I'm putting him back in unless someone can show that the source in question is not reliable.VolunteerMarek 17:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Nm, I see Frotz already put it back in. Thanks for that.VolunteerMarek 17:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Source only talks in scarce about Brevik and dhimmitude so its WP:UNDUE to use it.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you are trying to say.VolunteerMarek 17:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I say that there is a source cherry picking, as source is not about "‘Dhimmitude’" or status of dhimmis in muslim world but about Brevik conspiracy theory--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

just reverted shrike who is misrepresenting tibi again. if this continues i'll add the npov-tag again.-- altetendekrabbe  17:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Please stop removing sourced information "In Islam, freedom of faith conceded to others applies only to Jews and Christians, but it is a limited freedom and attached to the lower legal status of dhimmitude, or believers viewed as inferior to Muslims. By modern legal standards this is a violation of the human rights-based freedom of faith, rather than a variety of tolerance as commonly seen".Do you want to phrase it differently?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

@shrike, u r taking advantage of my 1-rr restriction. the *burden* is on *you* not me. u were reverted hence you're obliged to discuss as per wp:brd. revert yourself or i'll report you. and yes, the quote does not say *anything* about "inferior status". you are indulging yourself in original research, and the quote is misleading as it says nada about the situation in non-muslim regimes at that time. revert now.-- altetendekrabbe  17:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:BRD is not policy .Tibi explictly use the word "inferior".I don't understand what the problem?Please explain and suggest you own wording--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Shrike you are blatantly trying to game the 1rr restriction. You do this anymore and you'll most likely wind up with one yourself, if not an outright block.VolunteerMarek 18:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

And what it has to do with improving the article?That what talk page for.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Shrike is correct in that BRD is an essay, however WP:BURDEN is not, I suggest he meet it. 18:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I met it.Please explain what wrong?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

it seems that shrike is just unable to contribute without indulging in original research. his new line is still a misrepresentation. incredible.-- altetendekrabbe  08:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Please explain how its WP:OR as other user agree with me and stop with your unfounded accusation--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

not unfounded at all.-- altetendekrabbe  08:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Then either explain and prove it or strike it.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

i suggest you revert first as per guidelines. the burden is on you, and you have violated that policy over and over again.-- altetendekrabbe  09:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I violated anything I think you just WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't have the time right now to sift through what was done since my last revert. Let's just leave things alone for right now. Shrike, would you please put together a complete and coherent revision and present it here in the article talk rather than doing it piece by piece? -- Frotz(talk) 09:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a finished version but the problem that editors here don't want to explain what is exactly wrong and how it can be improved that just do blanket reverting.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

RoR

The RoR states "However, discrimination against Jews has relegated them to second-class status under Arab hegemony (“dhimmitude”) since the successful uniting of the tribes in the Arabian peninsula by Muhammad (570–632) in the sixth century. ".Please explaing what incorrect I used direct quote--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

First this is a tertiary source, so it should be avoided in a controversial article like this. Second, it's a quote pulled out of context. Again.VolunteerMarek 15:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

More blind reverts

I see that blind and unconstructive reverting is again happening on this page. These bits [1][2] have now been repeatedly reverted back into the article, despite the fact that both are heavily ungrammatical broken English, without at least making some attempt at correcting them in the process.

Are you people not even reading what garbage you are pushing into the article?

To Shrike, who seems to be the main source of such material: I appreciate that English is evidently not your native language, and non-native speakers are generally quite welcome to contribute here, to the extent of their abilities. However, if your command of the language is so poor that you risk objectively degrading the quality of articles when editing them, it is crucial that you be aware of your limitations and seek to minimize the damage. Also, while there are many things people with less than perfect English can usefully do on Wikipedia, negotiating difficult details about NPOV and correct treatment of sources, in advanced fields of theoretical debate, is not one of them. If you risk disrupting a talk discussion because you can't make yourself appropriately understood or because you fail to understand the finer points others are making, you should consider focussing your work on less linguistically demanding topic areas.

To prevent further damage to the text and further occasions for reverting, I strongly recommend you make it a habit of first proposing all substantial additions of text on the talk page and seek help copyediting them if necessary. If you won't do this voluntarily, I might consider imposing it as a formal restriction under ARBPIA. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there have been problems of comprehensibility as to Shrike's contributions at talk pages. He makes mistakes but can reasonably be understood.Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 15:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

My edits wasn't reverted because of the grammar if the grammar was a problem users could fix it themselves I was reverted because other userS WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and when I ask them to provide their own wording I just don't get any meaningful response anyhow after I was reverted second time I didn't reverted but asked help from uninvolved admin.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Does this article fall under ARBPIA? It seems like it should.VolunteerMarek 15:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

yes indeed. at least it's closely related.-- altetendekrabbe  15:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The connection is not apparent to me, and neither "Israel" nor "Palestine" appears in the prose (except in the title of an Italian journal article). Marek has referenced the fact that some editors here have edited in the I-P area before, but others (like me) have not, and I would caution against personalizing disputes. Shrigley (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

encyclopedia of race and racism

please remove this reference. the source is not appropriate as per this discussion on the rs/n [3]. in addition, tibi does not state anything about inferior status. that's a misrepresentation. the "freedom of religion"-phrase is given without the historical context (medieval regimes, muslim or non-muslim, were not modern democracies), hence it's misleading.-- altetendekrabbe  07:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

He does state "In Islam, freedom of faith conceded to others applies only to Jews and Christians, but it is a limited freedom and attached to the lower legal status of dhimmitude, or believers viewed as inferior to Muslims. By modern legal standards this is a violation of the human rights-based freedom of faith, rather than a variety of tolerance as commonly seen" I don't understand how can anyone claim that he doesn't talk about "lower legal status" and "violation of the human rights-based freedom of faith"Could you please show where he talk about medieval regimes?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

How do you want to paraphrase lower legal status?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

In the rs/n discussion, Fifelfoo intepreted Shrike's proposed text as "exceptional", because it was supposedly "claiming a tenuous theoretical construct is reality". I do not think it so: we are only describing the Encyclopedia's use of the word, with appropriate distance, rather than uncritically treating Dhimmitude as a Real Thing That Is Happening Today. So I have restored it. Try not to take rs/n suggestions inflexibly. Shrigley (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

[4]. THIS is precisely why telling people "you should use DR processes" doesn't work. When DR process, such as asking for input at RSN have no binding power, and no threat of sanction behind them, they get ignored at will. I honestly don't see how much clearer the consensus at RSN could've been with regard to ERR.VolunteerMarek 03:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Rs/n is not "dispute resolution" as the term is usually used. And a consensus made against core policy is not valid. There is no divine authority on Wikipedia which users can use to claim that a particular source is acceptable all the time or unacceptable all the time. On the contrary, the reliability and admissibility of a source depends on context, and on the claim being cited. If you try refuting my arguments rather than hand-wringing and making personal remarks, you might convince me to change my mind. Shrigley (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Asking question at RSN *is* part of the dispute resolution process in that it solicits outside uninvolved opinions.

There was *no* "consensus made against core policy" - there *was* a consensus which upheld a core policy, one which you're now trying to ignore because it... don't jive with your worldview or something.

No, there is no divine authority on Wikipedia, even if such exists elsewhere, but that doesn't mean you can do anything you want and disregard points made by others, go against consensus, and ignore statements just because YOUDONTLIKEIT.

The reliability and admissibility of a source *does* depend on the context, and in this context, the reliability and admissibility of the source has been found to be inadequate.

I don't have to "refute" your arguments - and not really interested in playing that little game (you know, the one where one person addresses the pertinent point and the other one says "you have not refuted my uber super awesomest argument", then the other person tries addressing the point again and the other person says "ah but you have not refuted my uber super awestomest argument", ad infinitum, or at least ad blockhammerum) because the good folks at RSN already have.

I have not wrung my hands, at least not here, and I have not made personal remarks.

VolunteerMarek 01:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Lеwis

Lewis use the term only once in the whole article it would be WP:UNDUE and if we will use his definition we should use perlamutter too.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The underlying problem is that this article needs to be merged to Bat Ye'or. Generally, the source addresses the very topic.VolunteerMarek 17:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

fully agree with marek. there are several criteria in the merging process [5], and this page passes all of them. the "dhimmitude"-search results on isiknowledge.com completely link "dhimmitude" to bat ye'or. "dhimmitude" is amply discussed at the bat ye'or page (with the criticism in the reception-section) [6]. hence, there is a considerable amount of duplicates and overlap between the pages. in addition, the dhimmitude-page is short enough for a merger, and it won't expand unless more duplicates are added to it. finally, the bat ye'or-page provides the context which the dhimmitude-page misses. tibi and griffith definitions can easily be added to the bat ye'or-page as well. is it possible/allowed to get an outside opinion about merging of pages? like 3o or rfc?-- altetendekrabbe  20:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

As has been discussed previously, the term and concecept are not exclusive to Bat Ye'or's views and has been discussed by others. It has obvious stand-alone notability. Ankh.Morpork 20:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

yes, but the other uses and definitions are not notable.-- altetendekrabbe  20:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Why not? Ankh.Morpork 21:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

make a search on isiknowledge.com. type "dhimmitude".-- altetendekrabbe  21:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

When WP:makeasearchonisiknowledge.com turns blue, I'll oblige your request. Until then, can you refer to existing policy when explaining why you aver that they are not notable. Ankh.Morpork 21:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

There's already a section for the merge proposal, and I suggest we centralize discussion there and use this section to discuss Lewis and Perlamutter. Shrigley (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

the sources have been discussed in and out (horsemeat).-- altetendekrabbe  07:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion

This neologism hasn't caught on outside discussion of Bat Ye'or's ideas, and some extremists who claim to be inspired by her. Therefore, redirect to her biography, explain the concept there - there is space enough. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

OpposeThis not true its used by scholars and other encyclopedias.For example

• Tibi, Bassam (April 2008). "The Return of the Sacred to Politics as a Constitutional Law The Case of the Shari'atization of Politics in Islamic Civilization". Theoria.
• "Anti-Semitism in the Arab World". Encyclopedia of Race and Racism. Gale Group.
• Sidney H. Griffith (2010). The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque: Christians and Muslims in the World of Islam. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0691146284.

--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

griffith's and tibi's definitions could easily be mentioned on bat ye'or's page as well. the encyclopedia is a tertiary source that uses someone else's definition. that's the reason why we should avoid the use of tertiary sources (it also failed at the rs/n [7]). in addition, there are not enough reliable secondary sources on this issue to justify this article. i think a merge is a good idea. clearly, the fact that the term has several distinct meaning makes this page susceptible to disputes about what bars to use and so on. this neologism is bat ye'or's invention and it belongs on her page. the ongoing development of her neologism, away from her use, should be included there as well.-- altetendekrabbe  11:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Grifith have the whole section in her book titled "Dhimmitude"--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand your post: the English is too poor. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Let me take a "wild" guess and suggest that Shrike means "Griffith has a whole section in her book titled 'Dhimmitude'". __meco (talk) 11:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This concept has been discussed by sources other than bat ye'or. Why do you state that "This neologism hasn't caught on outside discussion of Bat Ye'or's ideas" when this does not appear to be the case? Ankh.Morpork 11:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Griffith, who appears to be male, only has one brief mention in the introduction of The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque, not a section. We need a bit more than this to show that a neologism has entered the language. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Kindly look at P.17.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

if you search the term "dhimmitude" on isiknowledge.com you'll get 12 matches only. isiknowledge is one of the world's most prominent scientific search engines. all of them discuss "dhimmitude" in relation to bat ye'or. not griffith, not tibi but bat ye'or.-- altetendekrabbe  12:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Merging the articles is probably a good idea. It might cut down on some of the POV and COATRACKING. And it is true that the usage of the term is mostly limited to Bat Ye'or and the circle around her.VolunteerMarek 15:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• support, there are several criteria in the merging process [8], and this page passes all of them. the "dhimmitude"-search results on isiknowledge.com completely link "dhimmitude" to bat ye'or. "dhimmitude" is amply discussed at the bat ye'or page (with the criticism in the reception-section) [9]. hence, there is a considerable amount of duplicates and overlap between the pages. in addition, the dhimmitude-page is short enough for a merger, and it won't expand unless more duplicates are added to it. finally, the bat ye'or-page provides the context which the dhimmitude-page misses.-- altetendekrabbe  16:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• oppose This term is used by scholars other than Bat Ye'or. -- Frotz(talk) 00:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. One person, Bat Ye'or, has coined the term "Dhimmitude", but this is no different than the many other social science terms that were coined by one scholar and then adopted in the scholarly and popular discourse. As Shrike has pointed out, the term is used or referenced in the works of Bassam Tibi, Sidney Griffith, Adam DeVille, Liz Fekete, Philip Perlmutter, Matt Carr, the Encyclopedia of Race and Racism, ad nauseam. The term no longer belongs to the coiner. Altetendekrabbe cites "that the term has several distinct meaning" as a reason to merge. But this is true of many, many other social science terms, not least the ultra-controversial term "Islamophobia", which seems to be promoted by those who dismiss the term "Dhimmitude". Shrigley (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• oppose This seems to have been talked out and after identifying other RS that use the term, should clearly not be limited to Bat Ye'or biographical page. I'm surprised that nobody's pulled the tag after a month and a half. I'll remedy that. TMLutas (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Clearly the term is not limited to Bat Ye'or's use. -- Frotz(talk) 04:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

"which literally means protected"

In the lede I find the assertion that dhimmi "literally means protected". It doesn't. First of all, it's a noun: It describes a person being in some specific condition, state or cicumstance. Many Arabic words ending in -i do this, e.g. a Hajji is somebody having performed Hajj, or a Takfiri is sombody who committed Takfir, etc.

For the translation let's turn to the large standard scientific dictionary of Arabic, the Hans Wehr, 4th. ed.: - dhimmi: subject of a pact of protection, free non-muslim subject in Muslim states (see dhimma, ahl al-dhimma) - dhimma: tutelage, protection; pact of protection, treaty; responsibility, obligation (to pay), debt; inviolability, protection for life and limb; protection, guarantee, security; conscience; rebuke, disapproval

There is no literal English translation. I tried to fix this, but was reverted.

88.75.8.48 (talk) 01:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Discrimination

Adding the discrimination category and side-bar implies that "Dhimmitude" is real. But from the article we can see that Dhimmitude is at best a controversial concept and at worst a myth. We can't treat it as fact.VR _talk 03:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

What you say is demonstrably false. For instance, religions other than Islam are not permitted in Saudi Arabia. See Freedom_of_religion_in_Saudi_Arabia. Consider Tomorrow's Pioneers, a television show produced by Hamas that teach children to hate Jews. Read the article Persecution of Christians and pay particular attention to the section on persecution by Muslims and Muslim nations. People are still killed by government officials and by mobs for converting from Islam to other religions. Shall I go on? Is any of this not proof of discrimination? None of this is a "myth" as stated by Bernard Lewis. Besides, Lewis was talking about the status of HISTORICAL dhimmi, not present. This article isn't particularly concerned with the case of historical dhimmis. -- Frotz(talk) 09:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Your above justification is purely WP:OR. Few reliable sources, if any, consider Saudi laws to be an example of dhimmi. Not to say that historically dhimmis weren't discriminated against (they were, they couldn't carry arms etc.), but this article is about a politically motivated neologism, not actual history.VR _talk 18:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that it's OR to look at other Wikipedia articles for my justification? Look at the article for Bat Ye'or. There is a quote from Robert Spencer linking the two terms of "dhimmitude" and "discrimination". Put the two terms into Google and see what you find. What more proof do you need? -- Frotz(talk) 20:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Frotz, your arguments have no basis in wikipedia policy. You can neither rely on google, or other wikipedia article to make assertions on content. The term dhimmitude is controversial and disputed by scholars. Thus we can't treat it as fact.VR _talk 13:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Something being controversial and disputed is no reason to pretend it doesn't exist. -- Frotz(talk) 14:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on verifiability only. If something is disputed amongst reliable sources, its existence is far from certain, as far as wikipedia is concerned.VR _talk 16:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that "Islamophobia", which Vice regent added to the article, is just as controversial a "political neologism" as Dhimmitude. Shrigley (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that point was made quite some time ago when the criticism section was added. -- Frotz(talk) 21:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind adding discrimination in the See Also section, like I added Islamophobia there.VR _talk 16:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

by the same logic there wasn't any racism in the United States, it's all in the past and can't be verified today and shouldn't be in Wikipedia. Nor is there any such thing as Islamophobia, it just happens that 90% of all terriorist are of the Islamic religion, again it can't be verified can it. Or does just publishing a book act as that verifiable fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.79.224.1 (talk) 02:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Please, be serious, people! "Dhimmitude" is found straight in the Quran and says something like this "We, the Muslims "admit" religious brotherhood to those of "the Gospels/Bible" and "the Torah/Taurat"." Dhimmitude in practice is to say Ecumenical understanding to the Jews and the Christians and that this larger group is, as we know, from the people of Abraham in the Bible. Please, see the authoritative Quran, http://quran.com/ , with official support from the home of the Holiest sites of Islam, the Mecca and the Medina. Cheers! 85.166.63.12 (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

"regressive left"

why ist this in the "regressive left" category? Who's the one meant? Tibi, Gemayel, Yeor, Lewis? Please elaborate or delete 178.2.122.80 (talk) 13:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)