Talk:Ban of Islam in Angola

Merge
This should probably be merged with Islam in Angola.  Spencer T♦ C 00:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say we wait until the whole bunch of international media are covering the topic. Then we can see the relevance.--31.17.153.69 (talk) 02:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed   [  Soffredo  ]   Wikipedian Editor Ribbon 4.svg 02:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be merged into Freedom of religion in Angola. There is a section on Restrictions on religious freedom that seems to be the appropriate place for this new information. If there needs to be a separate article, a better title might be Restrictions on religious freedom in Angola. A "Ban of illegal ..." title uses redundant wording. Illegal organizations are banned. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The article has been restored to its original title, as Islam is the main focus here.   [  Soffredo  ]   Wikipedian Editor Ribbon 4.svg 14:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia aspires to be an encyclopedia and WP:NOTNEWS. If this is worthy of being in an encyclopedia it fits within a context. Surely that is an article that generally deals with Freedom of religion in Angola. If the material grows that it deserves to be broken out into an in-depth article because it is too large for the general article on the topic, that can happen. But it appears to be part of a historical policy within Angola even if historical precedent is being set with regard to the implementation of that policy. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

- Islam is not a religion, it is a type of government disguised as religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.232.222.162 (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that Islam is a weapon to establish a radical political view, but that does not mean that it is not a religion. --This is my account but who am I? (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

This seem to be a hoax, no credible source take up the news. Rolfc (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * At the moment, it's a bit cloudy. The Portuguese daily O País presents it as fact, which is about the best source from the world which I have seen. The popular, but controversial, British tabloid The Daily Mail also does. Tátótát (talk) 21:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * O País is angolan.I cant find any othre source than the person interviewed. What seem to be confirmed is that local authorities demanded that the newly constructed mesquita in 'Viana' should be demolished as it was not legal.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolfc (talk • contribs) 20:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The Daily Mail's sources are the IB Times and the Osun Defender (which they call the Osun Defence).  The IBTimes report is a mixture of the original information from the Nouvelle Tribune and the AllAfrica report.  I can't find the Angolan president's words in the Osun Defender, however, and the only other posts in the Osun Defender about this issue is the Washington diplomat's denial and a repost from the Naked Islam blog, whose source is the Xibaaru  article. --leuce (talk) 09:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a francophone Swiss source. Not familiar with it, but ut looks like a high-brow magazine http://www.lesobservateurs.ch/2013/11/22/un-pays-africain-interdit-lislam-sur-son-sol-et-detruit-les-mosquees/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tátótát (talk • contribs) 21:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The Les Observateurs article's main or only source is a blog post, which is a repost of the Xibaaru article. --leuce (talk) 09:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Islam was not "banned" in Angola. Instead, the Angolese government now require all religions (or "sects") to get registered, and those that are not registered yet are not allowed to practice until their registrations have been approved. What the minister said (probably in response to a question) was that at that time the registration of Islam was not yet approved. According to http://allafrica.com/stories/201311200767.html the backlog a few days ago was about 1000 registrations, and by that time about 194 religious groups have already been denied registration. The Tribune article then mixes recent statements from other Angolan officials to make it sound like Islam was specifically targeted and specifically banned. The Tribune article mentions e.g. the dismantling of the Zango minaret, but the official reason for the Zango minaret being taken down is that it was built without building permission, and not because Islam is now illegal (surely if that was the case, then the official reason would have been that). The rest of the Zango mosque does not seem to have been taken down. -- leuce (talk) 08:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That might be closer to the real story or at least that which we can verify from reliable sources. Some of the sources in our article are questionable compilations from other questionable sources combined with an occasional reliable sources. The Las Vegas Guardian Express is staffed by "citizen journalists" it its story is drawn from others. The onislam is an advocacy website that cites news items of concern to its mission. In these cases (and others we haven't used) the copy makes it clear that there is a common source; and they even tell us they are basing their copy on the actual sources. We should use more journalistic sources that originate the story. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and redirected the page while saving nothing. Zero.  There was no reliably sourced, and relevant, content here.  Wikipedia is not for publishing rumors, hoaxes or incitement. Jehochman Talk 12:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Hoax
http://www.news.com.au/world/angola-government-denies-it-tried-to-ban-islam/story-fndir2ev-1226768582895

This whole story appears to be a hoax, with reports only coming from obscure or disreputable media sources. "News Corp has been unable to trace the source of the information to Angolan sources" If this story were genuine, it would splashed all over the front page of the BBC and CNN. I propose that this page just be deleted. 123.243.212.179 (talk) 13:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with the conclusion but I believe the proper process is to ask for a speedy delete if not a AfD. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)