Talk:Dhimmitude

Edited Misleading bernard lewis Quote
The full Bernard Lewis quote has been provided to correct the partial misleading quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.29.197.150 (talk) 21:16, October 14, 2006‎ (UTC)

Heavily biased and almost irrelevant
This entire article is written to defend against an attack that doesn't exist, and is written as polemic against anyone who's used the term dhimmitude. I've fixed the glaring POV problems in the introduction, but they're pervasive and I don't think the article is worth the effort needed to salvage NPOV. If someone is willing to step up, fix the POV, and find examples of its relevance, it might be worth salvaging. As it is it's not notable and should be merged into dhimmi or just deleted. 76.103.244.155 (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree. I made one minor edit to improve NPOV, but there is a huge distance yo go. I will try some more. Mrdobolino (talk) 23:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Different article
, I wonder if this content might be more relevant at Dhimmi than at Dhimmitude.VR talk 15:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think mention of it should be in both articles. In reality, this article started out as a fork on dhimmi in order to showcase Bat Ye'or's book, and comes close to a WP:PROMO violation. The book is a polemical hackwork, and doesn't need full page coverage, and I would suggest the simplest solution would be to merge this with dhimmi, as a section of the latter, where it really wouldn't need more than three paras.Nishidani (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The source doesn't even use the term its clear WP:OR --Shrike (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have notified project Judaism about the discussed edit to hear more Input with people knowledgeable with this issue --Shrike (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I.e. WP:CANVASS to get numbers so you can root out what you dislike being mentioned? If you have any inkling of scholarship on this, you will know that the analogy is a commonplace, not requiring particular knowledge.
 * Please stop with you baseless accusations this wiki project has direct relationship with this edit.Please drop the WP:BATTLE mode--Shrike (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * For the nth time, will you please read policy and try and grasp what WP:OR/WP:SYNTH mean. It is patently absurd, stupid, to assert that original research is being undertaken to relate dhimmi to dhimmitude. The latter is the abstract noun for the former. I'll give you an analogy in Hebrew. If we write of minim (sectarians), we can use all sources using related terms bearing  on the topic, like the singular min (sectarian), or the abstract noun minut (heresy/sectarianism). In your assumption you would say, if a source mentions heresy, it can't be used if it doesn't refer to heretics, the object of an article. Sheesh.  Nishidani (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Its two different concepts as evident from two separate articles.Lets see what other editors say. --Shrike (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't ask other editors to pitch in if you yourself can't clarify what your objection is, in policy terms. Don't argue by obiter dicta, give a reason why the two constitute different concepts, i.e., since you use a philosophical word, tell me why a noun denoting a particular person (dhimmi) is a distinct concept from the noun for the category defining the conditions applying to such persons (dhimmitude)? I.e., why is 'slave' a different concept from 'slavery' rather than being the physical embodiment, exemplar, of the latter condition? Whatever the information must be retained. I've no problem with shifting it to dhimmi, but a trace of it will remain here. Nishidani (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that every source that discuss dhimmi is ok to use here? --Shrike (talk) 13:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have opened discussion on WP:ORN--Shrike (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree with VR and Shrike that this is not relevant here - maybe at Dhimmi. Trying to reconnect (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * VP VR did not say it should be on the other page. He wondered whether it might not suit that page more. I responded to his suggestion by adding an expansion on the dhimmi article. Shrike's objection is void because he is unfamiliar with the policy he cited, i.e.WP:ORN, where the consensus is clear. This leaves your sudden showing up out of nowhere, to violate ARBPIA rules (see the header on this page)  revert the text and then stack the vote. We don't operate like that round here.Nishidani (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know who VP is. I see the header, but can't see anything in this article related to Israel, or Palestine. Trying to reconnect (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Before editing a topic, don't judge it on the basis of what a skimpy wiki article states. Since Wikipedia articles are not reliable guides,  unless they get FA status. Anyone familiar with Bat Ye'or, or the use to which her work is put in the general literature, knows, whatever this article might not explicitly state, that it has a lot to do with 80s propaganda by indirection for whitewashing the state of Israel's practices in its occupied territories by  the stratagem of saying ('Sure, sure, but Arabs are far more vicious, and have been so against Jews for millennia (subtext: they can't complain- why pick on Israel'). In this is forms a perfect parallel with Joan Peters's squalidly garbled tract that emerged in the same period. Put up jobs of hopelessly skewed pseudo-scholarship which earned widespread press coverage and praise until the scholars stepped in and showed they were both pieces of trashy propaganda. That was not mentioned in this article, but that is what passing eyes with some competence in the area would have noted.Nishidani (talk) 07:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

RFC
Considering WP:OR policy should the sources that doesn't explicitly mention the term "Dhimmitude" used in the article? --Shrike (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Votes

 * No The article is about the neologism and the WP:OR policy is quite clear "published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article" as the sources that doesn't discuss the neologism doesn't have direct relation to the topic of the article --Shrike (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. Shrike's no proposal, as was shown on the relevant board is grounded in a failure to grasp elementary WP:NOR policy, and therefore this request for comment is pointless.Nishidani (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, because there is no OR issue here. Articles are based on sources that address the topic of the article, not only on sources that use the words in the title of the article. However, my strong preference is for this article to disappear, as the topic is discussed in plenty of other places. Zerotalk 02:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course they can. Original research, and verifiability, are about thoughts and concepts, not individual words. (This seems to be a common problem. I once met an editor who refused to accept that one side won a battle because what the source said was that the other side lost it.)—S Marshall T/C 09:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes per discussions above. Idealigic (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, though the exact meaning of the statement being discussed is not clear to me; so I am treating it as "...should sources that don't explicitly mention the term "Dhimmitude" be allowed to be used in the article?", as I think that is the intended meaning. I agree that it is the concept that matters, not the exact words used. (Though there may be other reasons why particular sources should not be used. I am not commenting on any particular sources. The statement refers to "the sources" which may refer to particular sources.) FrankSier (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)