Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islam and censorship


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. Even after a renaming and intense editing (culminating in an edit war and page protection), opinions are divided between those who want to keep the article because they believe that there are sufficient sources to establish this as a notable topic, and those who object to its contents on WP:POV and WP:COATRACK grounds. Given the evident lack of consensus, all that remains is for me to determine whether any of the "delete" opinions are so compelling as to mandate deletion in the absence of consensus. That is not the case, because the defects that the article has been argued to have and that have been given as reasons for the article's deletion can generally be remedied by editing.  Sandstein  15:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Islam and censorship

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I fail to see how the article reflects the religions stance on censorship and I think this is perhaps one of it's biggest failings. It just seems to be a hodgepodge of statements about what certain fanatically religious Muslims have done. These issues have already been covered in many other articles, such as Theo van Gogh's murder and Depictions of Muhammad. The article seems more slanted in that it gives undue weight towards "Muslims and Censorship" rather than what Islam has to say (this obviously violates the neutral point of view). Having articles on Christianity and Censorship and Buddhism and Censorship would seem equally mad. Furthermore there are numerous issues with (poorly) used sources and original research. For example in the lede:


 * "Some Islamic societies have religious police, who enforce the application of Islamic Sharia law" - Violates WP:OR as only Saudi Arabia is mentioned. There are at least 50 Muslim majority countries, it seems strange only one is mentioned.


 * "In non-Islamic countries, Islam has often been cited as a reason for self censorship. Sometimes this self censorship is because of threats of violence" - Again it's original research as nothing is mentioned in the source. Nowhere does this appear.


 * And the section on "Censorship in Non-Islamic Countries" has little to do with Islam and more so the actions of deranged zealots, and specifically for a murder case and other related crimes.

Perhaps it would be more appropriate to create an article on Islamic societies and Censorship rather than Islam and Censorship, because as far as I am aware the religion does not condone censorship save the depictions of Muhammad alone. To have an article on this statement alone seems rather silly. Granted that a religion forbidding drawing Muhammad seems rather stupid and childish, it is the only piece of censorship in Islam I can find. Furthermore it's already covered in Depictions of Muhammad. It would be far more appropriate to create Islamic societies and Censorship as a lot of the material regarding censorship can be moved there (minus the European incidences of course since these societies are not Muslim in general). NarSakSasLee (talk) 02:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: The article was moved to Censorship in Islamic societies during the debate. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Attempt to synthesize various incidents (most of which aren't actually censorship) to make original arguments about how awful Muslims are. WP:COATRACK, WP:SYNTH, etc. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Endorse. Wasn't aware of WP:COATRACK. Seems like a good reason for deletion. NarSakSasLee (talk) 12:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. My first response was keep and clean up, largely because we have articles summarizing the history of censorship in various countries and this seemed similar. However, I think the coatrack concerns carry the day in this case. A list of crimes by extremists that follow a particular religion is certainly POV, and state-sponsored censorship can be handled with equal quality and less controversy in the country-specific articles. VQuakr (talk) 08:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Endorse. Country specific articles seem likely the place to write about the issue of censorship with respect to Islamic beliefs. NarSakSasLee (talk) 12:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Ambivalent: Topic is notable, the phenomenon of Islamic censorship is real and important, but the sources should be scholarly, not just a mishmash of press articles. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article does not deal with the religion and that's simply the biggest problem. There doesn't seem to be any censorship in the faith except for drawing Muhammad (which is already covered here). NarSakSasLee (talk) 12:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, but improve. Indeed, censorship (in the Western sense) is a part of Sharia law. It forbids drawings of people (not only Mohammad) and orders death penalty for alleged blasphemy (such as The Satanic Verses). Many people, such as Theo van Gogh (film director), were actually killed for alleged blasphemy. But here is the problem: one needs good secondary sources that make precisely this connection: Sharia law - censorship. I did not see such sources in the article. My very best wishes (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My very best wishes (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Neither "the Western sense" nor any other sense of censorship refer to actions by individuals against content they dislike. There is no possible way in which the murder of Theo van Gogh or the reactions to the Jyllands-Posten cartoons constitute censorship. Censorship is suppression by an authority. (The Satanic Verses thing would count, but we have an article on that; without demonstration that an actual topic exists, there is no reason to copy it into a new article with the goal of demonizing Muslims.) Rather than claiming WP:ITEXISTS because of X, Y, and Z invalid things, please provide sources which concern the ostensible article topic. (News incidents of censorship by Muslims or in a Muslim country are not sufficient, as VQuakr and NarSakSasLee point out.) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry to disagree, but there are many books specifically about Islamic censorship (please see ) starting from book "Censorship in Islamic societies". You tell: "Censorship is suppression by an authority.". Yes, exactly. That's how it's accomplished in Islamic societies for centuries. By authorities.My very best wishes (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a point at which you or the other keep voter here intend to add any of these sources to the article? WP:NOEFFORT notwithstanding, this article has no content; it just briefly summarizes an existing article. This suggests that if we should have an article on it, WP:TNT may be the best route until such point as it contains any content. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * All right. As you suggested, I quickly looked a few sources. Some of them, in particular the book "Abuse your illusions: the Disinformation guide to media mirages" does claim that violent attacks and murders by Islamic activists represent Islamic censorship. But it will take some time to properly research and source. Please do not revert my edits. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 05:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per MVBW.  GregJackP   Boomer!   02:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * See reply to MVBW. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Also note that there is a related CfD at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_13. This main article at least has the advantage of being less problematically named (imo) with "...and...", in that it doesn't suggest that it addresses censorship within a single entity "Islam," rather than a faith is that is interpreted and applied very differently. I'd point out that there is an equally poor section on Islam in Censorship by religion. I'm also a bit concerned that much of what we are terming "censorship" by religion may often be better described as heresy, which has its own category tree. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be correct for societies where Church was separated from the State. Not so in Islamic societies if they are ruled by the Shariah Law. Fight with heresy conducted by the State becomes censorship, just like during Spanish Inquisition. My very best wishes (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment False dichotomy I'm afraid. Shariah law seems changeable since it's based on the interpretations of the Quran and other such holy texts in that particular religion. The religion has nothing to do with censorship as has been rightly pointed out by another user, more so blasphemy or heresy. Again, it's one of the reasons why I proposed "Islamic societies and Censorship" rather than having this article which can only be written about "not drawing Muhammad" (as silly as that sounds...) which isn't exactly censorship. NarSakSasLee (talk) 03:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep It is WP:N.  It is more then simple governmental censorship.  "Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body."  There have been several attempts at censorship by various organization other then the government and also calls by groups to censor material.  The recent film on Islam is one example of censorship, for example.  Casprings (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

*Delete. Censorship in Islamic countries, or by extremist groups not in charge, are functions of Governments or extremists. Issues of censorship IN Islamic countries are obviously therefore best discussed in relation to the COUNTRY, rather than associating the religion IN GENERAL with censorship. The article as presented is a WP:COATRACK to paint a religion with a broad brush. Also, the issuance of a fatwah against someone in another country may have a chilling effect on speech,an effect similar to censorship, but by definition, since the issuer has no authority OVER the individual, it is not strictly defined as censorship; there is a threat, not an effect of law. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 03:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC) ( user changed his vote, please see below My very best wishes (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC) )
 * The agents of Islamic censorship are sometimes not government, but religious organizations. I started fixing this... My very best wishes (talk) 06:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I started making some improvements ... My very best wishes (talk) 06:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep—Clearly a notable topic, POV issues can be solved by regular editing. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, creating an article on Christianity and censorship would be a good idea, there is a long history there and it would make for an interesting article. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hell, why stop there? How about generalizing Israeli censorship law into Judaism and censorship? Then there's work to be done on Buddhism and censorship... Not to mention the ever popular Zoroastrianism and censorship... And that's just the start — we can have a whole panoply of unencyclopedic original essays asserting connections between religions and censorship! Carrite (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry to disagree, but Censorship by religion is a mainstream concept. My very best wishes (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If there are reliable sources discussing a topic, we should cover it. It's unfortunate to see you resort to such crappy arguments, Carrite. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Recent edits to the article continue to demonstrate the inability of "keep" voters to find a topic here. Of the material added by MVBM, the vast majority is not censorship, and the rest are at present "incidents" that clearly would be better in country-based articles. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You suggested to actually improve the content (see above), and I started doing just that. But it takes time. Since you prefer to revert my edits without discussion at article talk page, I can only stop editing and wait until the end of this AfD discussion. I do not want to waste my time if the page is going to be deleted. Sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Such edits would not magically become appropriate if the article were kept; instead, they would demonstrate that deletion would have been the better option. You would be better off trying to improve the article, so that more people might want to keep it, instead of making it worse by adding irrelevant coatrack content. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - MVBW - the article again fails to demonstrate how ISLAM (ie the religion ) censorship's anything. Blasphemy and heresy are not forms of censorship. Governments can censor things but not religions - even Fatwa's which are religious rulings can't even said to be censorship since they are not law. You've simply added the same nonsense as before more or less. It's clearly violating WP:COATRACK. A better idea is to rename the article to "Islamic societies and Censorship" since things can be added to it for individual countries. NarSakSasLee (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Done, I renamed article as you suggested. My very best wishes (talk) 23:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually no, you didn't. You've named it something worse. NarSakSasLee (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I've weeded out the bits that seemed not to refer to Islam in general. But honestly I'm surprised no one has listened to what I've said above this comment. Honestly it would suit the article more. NarSakSasLee (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I would support a rename, this book looks like it would be very helpful if we took that focus. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I think that mass removals of sourced texts about Islamic censorship with OR edit summaries like "actually that would be political censorship counter to the revolution not of Islam" (?) during AfD discussion to prove that subject does not exist is a little pointy. My very best wishes (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 07:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment. Some of the arguments above need to be reassessed now that the page has been moved to . I am relisting to allow time for this. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 07:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is no way this article will ever be made to hew to WP:NPOV.  It is a WP:COATRACK for every Islamophobic right-wing sentiment out there.  Qworty (talk) 07:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - the article is being reworked. Currently most of the cites are to scholarly journals, and point at specific examples of censorship, including the easing of restrictions where this has been done (Jordon, for one).   GregJackP   Boomer!   11:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't it kind of hard for it to be coatrack when you have a series of academic articles written on the very subject? To list a few:
 * Heroes Or Heretics: Religious Dissidents Under Islamic Law, 14 Wis. Int'l L.J. 349.
 * Law And Religion In Israel And Iran: How The Integration Of Secular And Spiritual Laws Affects Human Rights And The Potential For Violence, 19 Mich. J. Int'l L. 109.
 * Palestinian Christians: Equal Citizens or Oppressed Minority In a Future Palestinian State? 7 Or. Rev. Int'l L. 26.
 * Of Prophets and Proselytes: Freedom of Religion and the Conflict of Rights in International Law, 49 Harv. Int'l L.J. 249.
 * Universal Versus Islamic Human Rights: A Clash Of Cultures Or A Clash With A Construct?, 15 Mich. J. Int'l L. 307.
 * All of these were found using the search terms of "international religious censorship" on Lexis.  GregJackP   Boomer!   15:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Original essay. Generalized religions do not have specific censorship policies. Here's the lead: "Some Islamic teachings and arguments have been used to censor certain opinions and writings in Islamic countries..." Any other subjective perspectives you wanna jam into this thing by any chance? Carrite (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, they do. Sorry to disagree, but Censorship by religion is a mainstream concept. My very best wishes (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Recent edit-warring by keep voters to put into the article non-censorship and non-Islamic censorship - in short, to create as long a list of incidents unfavorable to Muslims as possible, regardless of sources or policy - continues to demonstrate that WP:TNT is the best possible option even for users who believe that the sources will support an article. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Question - would that include "edit-warring" by delete voters who are removing sourced materials? Why don't we wait and see what the consensus is first?   GregJackP   Boomer!   18:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Tend to agree with you that most of this article is crap, coatrack, an attack page, but now that the Name has changed, there is a least a possibility of an NPOV article. It is not presently even close, but that could be changed by editing. Censorship in Islamic Societies would include moderate regimes, or non-majority countries, such as India, where the sensibilities of Muslim citizens are given deference, and how Islam INFORMS censorship law.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I do not really understand why this article was challenged. We do have article Censorship by religion, and this is a part (a sub-article) of the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Because the article is a coatrack for promoting Islamophobia by synthesizing irrelevant incidents. I've also removed some irrelevant material from other religions' categories, and I'm skeptical about some of the material that (currently) remains in the article, largely because it lacks sources to confirm that this was actually censorship. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you telling that religious police in Islamic theocracies does not conduct censorship? My very best wishes (talk) 17:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm telling you that sources that merely attest the existence of religious police, like the BBC source that you've previously tried to restore, are insufficient. This seems pretty obvious, really. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Then let's improve sourcing. But the subject does exist and can be sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete the purported qualitative differences from other forms of censorship sufficient to justify this article are firstly overblown (I suggest that if the editors supporting this were to investigate suppression in 'western' nations with as much fervor they would find qualitatively similar cases, and an examination of Soviet suppression would perhaps highlight even greater similarities) and do not to my reading require an independent article at all, but secondly and most importantly the article in its current form is a thinly disguised attack piece editors are trying to work around and we would be better served by blowing this one up and starting over if the consensus is that it is neccessary for Wikipedia to have an article on this subject.--Talain (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Good example of a blatant WP:COATRACK that this article COULD attract; the Libyan embassy attacks. No censorship has thus far happened in what the editors thus far refer to as an Islamic society, but there are threats to civil liberty (though for a stupid and insulting film) in THE USA. Whether you would presently consider the US an Islamic society.... for whatever reason.... that is where the potential censorship would happen.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 04:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete [This commenter is the nominator, whose vote is assumed to be delete –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC) - I've somewhat changed my mind again. I thought I was convinced by the user "my very best wishes" and Greg but from their edits it's more than obvious they want to include individuals who censor stuff (ie ordinary protestors) when this actually isn't censorship. I tried to work to see if the article could be relevant, and change, but we already have "censorship by religion" to cover the Muhammad drawing case (including other numerous articles on this subject that's been done to death). The religious police stuff (since there aren't that many Islamic theocracies - only Iran and Saudi Arabia would fit into article) would also contribute a small amount to the article. Sources are also unverifiable. Also what's this nonsense about inserting weird quotes such as "She was arrested by "men with big beards ... saying they wanted to kill her"" - mob justice is not censorship especially for a case as in Sudan. The article still seems a bit of a mish mash and directed towards "those nasty Muslims". In this way I suggest a reddirect to "depictions of Muhammad" since only drawing Muhammad is considered a sin within the faith. Suggesting "Islamic societies and censorship" wasn't even taken seriously. The user changed it himself to fit in a WP:POV by re-writing it as "censorship in Islamic societies" which suggests something worse that Muslims are censoring stuff within their own communities. NarSakSasLee (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not think you suppose to vote "delete" and two times "endorse" as an AfD nominator. There is a book with precisely same title as this article, along with other books about the same . Yes, I think that some of your comments about specific sources and phrases are not unreasonable. This should be fixed if article is kept.My very best wishes (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Nar; looking up the non-extreme examples (ie not talking about the Taliban or Iran or the KofSaud), like Nigeria, or Indonesia, or Indian law's accomodation of Islam, and their extra provisions for depiction of the Prophet, they very much resemble US hate crime laws. Am just working this up, but they have very different approaches to speech provisions; if the crap can be trimmed, that might be worthy of inclusion, and would give balance to a very stilted article.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 04:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Islamic law is obviously very different from US constitution. Yes, what Islamic law means on practice vary from country to country. My very best wishes (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per whomever above said Censorship by religion is a mainstream notable subject, and this subtopic is well-sourced enough to be, too. &mdash; Cup co  01:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete a blatant coatrack article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep A significant part of the nominator's rationale has been dealt with: the nominator suggested that instead we should have an article on "Islamic societies and Censorship" rather than "Islam and Censorship", and indeed the article has been moved to Censorship in Islamic societies, which is exactly what the nominator wanted. Other aspects of the nomination are really reasons for editing particular details of the article, not reasons for deletion. For example, ""Some Islamic societies have religious police, who enforce the application of Islamic Sharia law" - Violates WP:OR as only Saudi Arabia is mentioned." Well then, edit that particular sentence. The essential thrusts of most of the remaining "delete" arguments seem to be (1) "this is about how particular muslims interpret islam, not about what islam really says", and (2) "this is a coatrack article, collecting together various unrelated things". In answer to (1), so what? There is certainly a good deal of censorship done, in which islam is claimed as a justification. That is a well-documented and notable fact, and whether it is the "true" interpretation of islam is a question for muslims to debate. Even if we were to accept the point of view that it is not "true" islam, that would not mean that the phenomenon does not exist in the real world, and we should not censor the fact that it does because we take the point of view that it is a wrong interpretation of islam. In answer to (2), no it isn't. There are numerous facts which are connected by the fact that they involve censorship, and by the fact that islam is cited to justify that censorship. That is a very real and genuine connection, and documenting the connection is not coatracking. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have just noticed that the nominator, after suggesting "would be more appropriate to create an article on Islamic societies and Censorship rather than Islam and Censorship" and seeing that indeed the article has been moved to Censorship in Islamic societies, instead of welcoming the change, regards this as a bad move, using the words "something worse". Have I missed something? Unfortunately I fear there may be a danger that some people could see this as suggesting that the nominator is just trying to find pretexts for deletion. Is there some deep significance in the difference in wording between "Islamic societies and censorship" and "Censorship in Islamic societies"? If so, it is lost on me. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the current title is better, but I do not really object to moving it back or changing to something else. Except it would be a good idea to suggest exact title and discuss. But I think that would be easier to discuss as "suggested move" at article talk page, rather than during AfD.My very best wishes (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:POVFORK. Already covered in other articles about fundamentalist Islam, specifically when it relates to depictions of Muhammad. And those articles are written using far more objective criteria, versus the tenuous links endorsed by this topic title. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Easily passes WP:GNG. Perhaps name it Censorship by law, violence, or harassment, in the name of Islam or something more fitting.  The article shouldn't have been renamed to include in "societies" since the censorship affects things worldwide.  Something is done that offends them in America, their leaders can rile them up, and they go insane and start committing violence against people not even remotely connected to the event.   D r e a m Focus  14:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So instead of maintaining the article such that its content adheres to the title and the ostensible topic, you're suggesting broadening the title to something meaningless so that the unrelated coatrack information looks like it belongs. Way to go. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not think that something like Censorship by Islam Islamic censorship would be unreasonable. The censorship by religion has been described in numerous RS. This is a form of censorship where freedom of expression is controlled or limited using religious authority or on the basis of the teachings of the religion. This form of censorship has a long history and is practiced in many societies and by many religions. Examples include the Edict of Compiègne, the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (list of prohibited books) and the condemnation of Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses by Iranian leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. ( sorry for copy-paste ). My very best wishes (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Islam" does not censor people. (Nor do "Christianity," "Judaism," "Communism," etc.) We could write about censorship described in the religion's texts, we could write about censorship motivated by the religion or exercised by a religious authority, assuming users can provide sources, but we will not write about every incident of violence against a writer and claim it's censorship because the perpetrators are Muslim. (It's been my impression that the censorship by religion page is analogous to "X by country," not to "works by Mark Twain.") –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure they do. The Encyclopedia of Censorship has an Index entry of "Religion (religious censorship). See also The Bible; blasphemy; heresy; specific headings, e.g. Catholicism" and then lists 18 separate entries, not counting the see also entries.  As an example, the Roman church was notorious for its censorship.   GregJackP   Boomer!   17:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The "Roman church" is also an institution. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I can see your point and corrected. But I also agree with GregJackP. If the subject was in Encyclopedia of Censorship, it should also be here.My very best wishes (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Vote change to Keep Due to change in title. Let me stipulate that I agree with almost all points Roscelese and NarSakSasLee have made. It is a terrible article. It has WP:COATRACK within it, there are multiple editors adding criticisms of Muslims or the actions of some Muslims as censorship, when they clearly aren't, plus there is a confusion between the actions of autocratic regimes (which, whether secular or religious, always censor free speech) with their religious character. The question I now ask myself is not whether it is a good article (it isn't) nor whether the article as written violates WP principles (it does), but whether an article CAN be written on the subject. I also agree that to get there, it has to be mercilessly slashed, but falls short of WP:TNT.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I respect the belief that there could be an article on this topic, but I think that editors like you, who think there may be a topic but that there's basically no content here worth keeping and that the behavior of users promoting the article is inappropriate, can perhaps agree that WP:TNT may be the best option. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Understand the rationale behind WP:TNT, and this article is close. Might be persuaded down the line, but AfD and RfCs are actually (though painfully slow) setting some limits on the article. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Note to closing administrator. During this deletion discussion several people improved this article to this version, but it was reverted back to version existing prior to AfD. My very best wishes (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You could also say that the article was dragged down to that version, which is even more of an irrelevant coatrack than the original. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sure that closing administrator can look himself at this version and decide if the chapter "Limits on freedom of expression in Islamic societies" was relevant to the Censorship in Islamic Countries. I have no idea why you removed this chapter. Of course this is still "wrong version" that needs improvement. My very best wishes (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, do note that the author there found it difficult to write about censorship proper/alone in such societies and instead chose to title it "Limits on freedom of expression". Deciding what's censorship and what not from that would be pretty much WP:OR. Note the acrimonious lack of consensus on that issue on the talk page. Using "censorship" as an euphemism for more brutal ways (including murder) in which freedom of expression can be curtailed/violated is extremely silly and a WP:NPOV/OR violation too. (Amusingly, the editors attempting to expand the article with everything under the sun don't seem to realize that they're insulting the victims of the more gruesome acts by cataloging such acts as mere censorship.) Tijfo098 (talk) 09:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. If you've got to come up with some contrived "limits on freedom of expression" so you can catch-all anything Muslims did that you dislike, you are demonstrating that you do not have a topic, or at least that if there is a topic, you are incompetent to edit it. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. So far, it is nothing but an attractor for random Islamophobic noise. I see little chance to develop the article into something useful - religious influence on secular affairs always has to be properly contextualized (compare Matthew 5:38–5:42 with the Crusades and Gott mit uns). Concentrating on just one property of societies that censor is like having articles on topics like "murders by the Scottish" or "annoying body-odors of Christians" - by careful application of confirmation bias you can surely find plenty of sources to suggest a strong relationship between the elements of the pairs of topics, but this is not a useful approach. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and better work on Human rights in contemporary Islamic societies (note the lack of any section there on [limits on] freedom of expression). That is the topic that this article is creeping towards anyway. Someone being killed after saying something is not how censorship is normally defined. There's also a long list of incidents in Freedom of speech versus blasphemy (which also covers events outside Islamic societies proper), so there isn't much that's missing from Wikipedia. And look how pretty censorship by country is too... Tijfo098 (talk) 09:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The article is only about the depiction of Muhamed. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 13:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not surprised that people vote "delete" because almost all reasonable content has been removed from this version by someone who most actively argued for deletion and was engaged in sustained edit warring in this article to prove their point. My very best wishes (talk) 14:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not like you and Greg actually added any significant amount of material that was actually related to the topic, and people can always view the history. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG -- No unique  names  15:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources being? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is my pleasure to introduce those 11 numbered sources currently visible at the bottom of the page.  -- No  unique  names  06:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * O'Reilly Factor, a cartoon blog, another agenda-based source that's irrelevant to the supposed subject, a lot more sources that are potentially reliable but quite irrelevant. Good job, but please try harder. (Likewise some of the history sources - reliable, but relevance is important here and is not demonstrated.) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is currently not very good but that seems to be because of there being too many cooks and lots of edit warring. Our editing policy is to persevere and improve the content.  Better sources exist such as Censorship in Islamic societies - a reasonably respectable book-length treatment of the topic.  Finding and working from such sources is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion.  Note also that I'm here because the matter was raised at ANI.  Warden (talk) 16:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you explain how you would improve the article? The linked source may be fine, but until someone does the legwork of including it, we have one notable incident which is more than adequately discussed in multiple existing articles (the Satanic Verses thing) being used as a coat-rack for coats that aren't actually censorship but that do serve the aim of demonizing Muslims. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The first thing to do would be to topic ban the disruptive editors who have been edit warring. When the field has been cleared so that cooler heads can prevail, I would add sober and scholarly content from sources such as that one.  I'm not holding my breath though.  Wikipedia is poor at handling controversial topics of this sort but it is our policy not to exclude them. Warden (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep There are plenty of sources in the article.So its meet our requirement for notability.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC).And also like I noted there are plenty of sources out there--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Over half of the sources in the article are supporting a single incident which can only questionably be described as censorship, and a number of the sources are not RS-compliant. You're not even trying, are you? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have found this source with ease and this one --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: This issue has become far too controversial in the last couple of days. I'll let the community decide on the outcome. I'm happy to do that. It looks like I missed lots of information in the last couple of days to become too involved in it again. My primary concerns were the small incidences of extreme behavior that were in the article and the massive amounts of irrelevant and unsourced information, that should not be in a wiki article since it blatantly violates WP:COATRACK. As far as I see it you can only talk about one thing and that's depictions of Muhammad. Honestly that's about as far as I can see it's gonna get. Someone needs to work on work consensus. NarSakSasLee (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. If there is a topic to be brought forward here, what we see today is not it. I am sympathetic to all the "keep" !voters who recognize that there should be a topic written about the kind of censorship that is found in Islamic culture. Such an article would be good. However, that article is not what we have in front of us. That article would have a different title, and different text, and different references. How much should be kept or renamed? Nothing. That is why I say the article should be deleted. Somebody who has read scholarly sources about Islamic censorship should write the article anew, under a new name. Binksternet (talk) 03:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. You might want to look at the article history.  Everytime a scholarly source was introduced (i.e., peer-reviewed journals, etc.), Roscelese deleted it.  That's why the article is locked right now.  It's kind of hard to improve the article when one person can ignore consensus and edit-war it into its present condition.   GregJackP   Boomer!   04:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Your argument would hold water if the sources you added gave any sort of support to the text you added, but they did not. For instance, you added the text, "In 2007, the Sudanese teddy bear blasphemy case demonstrated the censorship effect of Islamic blasphemy laws with the arrest, trial, conviction, and imprisonment of British schoolteacher Gillian Gibbons in Sudan." This text was backed by the scholarly article "Defamation of Religions: The End of Pluralism?" The source calls it a case of the exercise of anti-blasphemy laws, not a case of censorship. The same problem arises with your next cite, the scholarly article, "Defamation of Religions: A Vague and Overbroad Theory that Threatens Basic Human Rights". This article, too, does not describe the Sudanese teddy bear case as censorship. Your additions violated the guideline we call WP:SYNTH; they were not appropriate and they were to be removed by anyone paying attention. Binksternet (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Minor quibble: WP:SYNTH is actually a wp:policy. And those edits violate not only that but plainly WP:V being a direct misrepresentation of the sources. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly! Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is extremely clear from the context of the article, for example, 23 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 69, at 73 the article states: " It is important to protect the individuals who wish to express those truth claims in a peaceful manner, without undue burden or censorship ." [emphasis added] and 23 Emory Int'l L. Rev. at 76 it states: "...international law provides for occasions of incitement to violence and recognizes that it is necessary to censor certain types of speech." [emphasis added] In addition, the article is cited in other articles to support the same position, that the actions amount to censorship, such as: "There continues to be debate about what this actually means and how States can enforce laws meant to prevent giving offense to what amounts to a collection of ideas and beliefs." 2010 B.Y.U.L. Rev. 635, 663, citing Graham 23 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 69.  I could go on, but the source does not have to state it explicitly, unless of course one cannot think beyond the explicit text.  No policy states that it has to say so explicitly, and it does not come from separate sources as required by WP:SYNTH.  It comes from one source.  The same thing with the second source.  In the second, in the same section as the Sudan case, the source states: "there is a broad range of "permissible" limitations on the freedom of expression so as to preserve the majority religion's freedom from religious injury." [emphasis added] 2010 B.Y.U.L. Rev. 635, at 674.  Clearly censorship, and again, from one source, not multiple sources.  Government action to suppress speech is in fact censorship, by any reliable definition of the term.  See Merriam-Webster, which states that censorship is "the institution, system, or practice of censoring" and links to the following for the definition of censoring:

"Act of changing or suppressing speech or writing that is considered subversive of the common good. In the past, most governments believed it their duty to regulate the morals of their people; only with the rise in the status of the individual and individual rights did censorship come to seem objectionable. Censorship may be preemptive (preventing the publication or broadcast of undesirable information) or punitive (punishing those who publish or broadcast offending material). In Europe, both the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches practiced censorship, as did the absolute monarchies of the 17th and 18th centuries. Authoritarian governments such as those in China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and the former Soviet Union have employed pervasive censorship, which is generally opposed by underground movements engaged in the circulation of samizdat literature. In the U.S. in the 20th century, censorship focused largely on works of fiction deemed guilty of obscenity (e.g., James Joyce's Ulysses and D.H. Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover), though periodic acts of political censorship also occurred (e.g., the effort to purge school textbooks of possible left-wing content in the 1950s). In the late 20th century, some called for censorship of so-called hate speech, language deemed threatening (or sometimes merely offensive) to various subsections of the population. Censorship in the U.S. is usually opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union. In Germany after World War II it became a crime to deny the Holocaust or to publish pro-Nazi publications. See also Pentagon Papers."
 * Clearly not WP:SYNTH nor WP:OR, and definitely not misrepresenting the source.  GregJackP   Boomer!   18:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Where does the source explicitly say it is censorship. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Clearly not WP:SYNT. The anti-blasphemy laws and actions is the way the Religious censorship has been accomplished through the history. This is per multiple RS that can be found even by a Google search . The religious censorship is usually performed on the grounds of blasphemy, heresy, sacrilege or impiety - the censored work being viewed as obscene, challenging a dogma, or violating a religious taboo. Defending against these charges is often difficult as some religious traditions permit only the religious authorities (clergy) to interpret doctrine and the interpretation is usually dogmatic. For instance, the Catholic Church banned hundreds of books on such grounds and maintained the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (list of prohibited books), most of which were writings that the Church's Holy Office had deemed dangerous. My very best wishes (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The entirety of this response is original research from other sources to justify inclusion of this source which isn't explicitly on this topic. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I think it's quite obvious that this is a legitimate subject for an article. There's a ton of sources that discuss Islam and censorship, from news to books to academic articles. Here's just a few quick news sources that took me a minute to find:


 * Islam, Censorship and `The Satanic Verses' - Los Angeles Times
 * Censorship and Persecution in the Name of Islam - Middle East Media Research Institute
 * As fundamentalist Islam expands, some artists embrace censorship as a shield from society - Los Angeles Times
 * Coping With Islam: Censorship in Dutch Academia - Canada Free Press
 * A night not at the opera; Germany and Islam (A row in Germany about censorship) - The Economist
 * In Egypt, artists bemoan censorship but see society as the real censors - Associated Press


 * It's really not that hard to find sources on this topic. Silver  seren C 07:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've responded on the talk page about ways these sources are largely unsuitable (unreliability, irrelevance). –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep There have been many Islamic societies over the centuries, ranging form the most liberal and enlightened to the most tyrannical and repressive. Certainly the majority of artistic censorship in those societies, if not political and ideological censorship, was justified, rightly or wrongly, by appeal to faith.  See for example LGBT rights in Afghanistan and Mahmoud Darwish.  Deleting an article that can only be a coat-rack is legitimate, deleting one that might become such is putting the cart before the horse, and indeed would denude Wikipedia of the vast majority of its articles. Rich Farmbrough, 02:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC).


 * It's not about "might become" it was a coatrack at the time it was nominated and subsequent efforts to "improve" it have only made it more of one. I'll ask you the same question I asked Warden: how would you propose fixing the article, since the only "keep" !voters (and I specify these - I think there might be a topic there, but the content is not only worthless but actively harmful such that we may as well WP:TNT) who have edited the article have made edits that exacerbated rather than assuaged the deletion rationales? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Possibility of becoming a coatrack is not a legitimate reason to not have a frank and objective presentation on censorship. There is obviously a great deal of censoring of things because they offend the religious sensibilities of certain muslims.  -- Frotz(talk) 06:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * See my comment to Rich immediately above, which addresses all the points made in your comment. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per The Digital Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Information Technology and Political Islam OUP p16 Guardians of Faith in Modern Times: ʻulamaʼ in the Middle East Brill p272 Censorship in Islamic societies Saqi The Challenge of Pluralism: Paradigms from Muslim Contexts EUP p21 Encyclopedia of Censorship Infobase p163 Darkness Shines (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you post the material from these books on the talk page? As I've said, the problem isn't that the topic doesn't exist, but that the article is total rubbish. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Stipulating so, this is a content dispute, and as such is inappropriate for AfD. Make my vote Keep, for the simple fact that this is demonstrably a notable topic, discussed in significant detail in scores of works, and so passes the GNG.  (You may, Roscelese, spare yourself the trouble of writing a reply to this asking for a response from me.  With WP:KEEPCONCISE in mind, your attempts to filibuster through rebutting over a dozen Keep proponents is unseemly.  Yes, we get that you want the article deleted, and yes, we get that you agree with no position contradicting that.)   Ravenswing   06:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.