Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gharqad
Gharqad
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Gharqad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Hello Wikipedians,
I don't know why we need an article about a biblical plant on Wikipedia. In fact, upon checking further, I didn't find any strong references to this plant in religious scriptures like the Holy Bible or the Holy Quran.
Even this article has a Critical assessment section, where it says that the topic "Gharqad" is insignificant and antisemitic. I fully agree with that, and that's why I believe there is no place for such an insignificant and antisemitic post on Wikipedia. On the other hand, I don't think Wikipedia is a place for expressing any personal research or opinion, so there is no point in having a critical assessment section.
This article itself claims that among the hundreds of books of Islamic hadith narrations, there are only two that actually mention this plant. Even if we think it's an Islamic topic, there are not enough Islamic references. Also, this article proves that two hadiths are misinterpreted with a few points. Again, Wikipedia is not a place for investigating hadith or any religious book.
If we want to consider this article as an article about the Gharqad plant, this article actually confuses the readers. This article provides no specific details on the plant. Instead, it says Nitraria retusa, Nitraria schoberi, Lycium shawii, Lycium schweinfurthii could be some candidates for the gharqad tree. But there is no reference to that. Wikipedia doesn't accept any personal research.
It looks like this article is on the topic of Antisemitism in Islam. In that case, we can move some contents that have proper references to that article.
This is my opinion. I believe this article in this format will mislead people and create more hate towards Jews. This article supports Muslim and Christian extremists to validate their ideologies. On the other hand, for the Zionist moment, it also fuels their ideology that all Muslims are antisemitic.
What do you think about this article? Should we keep it by reformatting properly and removing antisemitic and personal research-based comments, or remove this and move relevant content to the Antisemitism in Islam page?
Thank you. Your valid opinion is needed.
- Sajid (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bible, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Middle East, Israel, and Palestine. Sajid (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. https://ar-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%D8%BA%D8%B1%D9%82%D8%AF?_x_tr_sl=ar&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp The corresponding article in the Arabic Wikipedia treats Gharqad as a synonym for the genus Nitraria, and includes some references that could be added to the English article. The Hebrew Wikipedia article he:ר'רקד also has some references that might be helpful. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I am against deletion, here is why
Why is this article nominated for deletion? That topic is extremely discussed; there are religious-studies articles about it, major international newspaper articles about it, vibrant discord about it in the general media and so on.
About some things User:Sajidmahamud835 said above:
I don't know why we need an article about a biblical plant on Wikipedia
- This plant is by no means biblical, it's hadithic.
I didn't find any strong references to this plant in religious scriptures like the Holy Bible or the Holy Quran.
- Have you found any references at all in these books? There aren't. Again, it's hadific and hadith is a major literature in Islam.
This article itself claims that among the hundreds of books of Islamic hadith narrations, there are only two that actually mention this plant. Even if we think it's an Islamic topic, there are not enough Islamic references. Also, this article proves that two hadiths are misinterpreted with a few points. Again, Wikipedia is not a place for investigating hadith or any religious book.
- So what? These are major hadith collections and there are more than two references for this plant in these hadiths; in fact these hadiths are from the broader hadith group of The stones and trees hadiths.
If we want to consider this article as an article about the Gharqad plant, this article actually confuses the readers. This article provides no specific details on the plant. Instead, it says Nitraria retusa, Nitraria schoberi, Lycium shawii, Lycium schweinfurthii could be some candidates for the gharqad tree. But there is no reference to that. Wikipedia doesn't accept any personal research.
- The first versions of the article didn't have this mess; it mentioned only the genuses Nitraria and Lycium.
It looks like this article is on the topic of Antisemitism in Islam. In that case, we can move some contents that have proper references to that article.
- Why? What is your problem that there would be a single unified article about this, easily maintained in one place by the community?
This is my opinion. I believe this article in this format will mislead people and create more hate towards Jews. This article supports Muslim and Christian extremists to validate their ideologies. On the other hand, for the Zionist moment, it also fuels their ideology that all Muslims are antisemitic.
- I don't know why you thought about Christian extremists and Zionist extremists because they don't accept this text as sacred but anyway, why would the truth about this concept mislead anyone if that person doesn't believe in a invading/violent version of Islam?
What do you think about this article? Should we keep it by reformatting properly and removing antisemitic and personal research-based comments, or remove this and move relevant content to the Antisemitism in Islam page?
- How can you make something which is inherantly antisemitic (anti Jewish to be precise) as not antisemetic? I don't think Sunni Muslims will take you seriously if you'll tell them that their books are different than what they evidently are. No need in deleting anything besides maybe the pictures, and summerize the opener passage a bit.
Thanks. 2A10:8012:7:97C7:C80E:5AB0:F714:BE78 (talk) 08:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Dear fellow contributor,
- Firstly, I extend a warm welcome and sincere gratitude for your valuable contributions to Wikipedia. Your input is greatly appreciated.
- Thank you for sharing your perspective on this matter. Your insights will certainly be taken into account as we navigate this discussion.
- Allow me to address some of the points you raised regarding the deletion discussion:
- Regarding the term "Biblical plant," it's important to note that the term "Bible" encompasses various religious scriptures, not solely those of Christianity. It's analogous to the Quran in Islam. My apologies if this caused any confusion.
- As for the term "Hadithic," I understand your concern. Perhaps "from Hadith tradition" would be a more suitable phrasing to avoid any misinterpretation. Still, is it necessary to have a separate article on a plant from Hadith tradition?
- In Wikipedia, we adhere to strict guidelines regarding sourcing, especially when it comes to religious texts. While Hadith is indeed a significant aspect of Islamic tradition, we must ensure that information is presented in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and neutrality.
- The complexity of Hadith presents challenges in citation. While we respect its importance within Islamic scholarship, we must exercise caution in its usage to maintain clarity and avoid misinterpretation. I won't blame you, its common among Muslims to use Hadith as reference, but when its comes to such controversial stuffs, Hadith isn't enough. I am not saying we don't respect Hadith, we just need some verifiable reference. You claimed all Jews will follow the anticrist (Al-Masih ad-Dajjal), who will be pretending as Jesus, and later all of them will be defeated by real Jesus and the [Imam]] of Muslims, this is totaly antisemitic. Its like saying all Jews are bad. We even saw this kind of publication before the The Holocaust.
- As its directly against Jews and makes them look Evil, Wikipedia cannot emphasis this kind of articles. Maybe we can keep some of the contents in Antisemitism in Islam or in the Nitraria article.
- Regarding the mention of specific groups within Islam for example Sunni or Shia, it's crucial to maintain neutrality and avoid privileging one perspective over another. We cannot say 2 hadith book that has mentioned this plant is better than other hundreds of books especially the four books of Shia. Wikipedia strives to present a balanced view that encompasses diverse viewpoints within a topic.
- Regarding the article itself, my intent in initiating this discussion was to address concerns about its overall quality and relevance. Whether through revision, consolidation, or removal, our goal is to ensure that Wikipedia maintains its standards of accuracy and neutrality.
- Look, having too many news on something or too many people talking on a topic doesn't make it legitimate to have a dedicated article on that topic in Wikipedia. It will be shame full for Wikipedia if extremists (whatever they are Muslim, Christian, Zionist, Jewish, or Atheist) quote Wikipedia while spreading hate speech. Having this kind of Article will aid them spreading their ideology.
- I appreciate your efforts to uphold Wikipedia's standards and your commitment to constructive dialogue. Together, we can work towards a resolution that aligns with Wikipedia's principles and fosters a platform of inclusive knowledge sharing.
- Thank you for your continued engagement in this important discussion.
- Warm regards,
- Comment: So what is the policy-based reason that the article should be deleted? Please keep it to a sentence or two, the wall of text above doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, @Oaktree b ,
- Thank you. Here are the policy-based reasons:
- Neutral point of view (NPOV): The article may fail to present information in a neutral manner, especially if it contains potentially antisemitic content. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
- Verifiability: Content sourced from religious texts like Hadith should be verifiable and presented in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines. Wikipedia:Verifiability
- No original research: Content should be based on reliable secondary sources rather than personal interpretation or analysis. Wikipedia:No_original_research
- Also, there is some false information, but that could be fixed. Overall, in my view, its a useless article promoting antisemitism dehumanizing Jews, and telling a story that gives legitimacy to extremists to kill innocent Jews.
- Thank you for your valuable time. I am seeking your opinion on this.
- Regards,
- Sajid (talk) 12:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. I see no particular problem with this article. gidonb (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)