Talk:Defamation of religion and the United Nations

Article title

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rewrite

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

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

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

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

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

NPOV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dispute_re_Lead_section

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

I prefer the lede used here for these reasons:

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

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

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

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

As for why your version is not better...

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

As for why my version is not worse...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response to third opinion request:

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

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

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

Factual accuracy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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