Talk:Infidel/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Reliable sources only please

Bless sins, please stop inserting material from unreliable website, including Douglas Harpers "Online etymology dictionary". Harper is a historian, not a linguist, and I don't believe even has a doctorate. As for your material from islamonline.net, it doesn't say what you are attributing to it. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The only material I've added in the last little while is from the Online Etymology dictionary. As far as I know, you yourself have used that as a source ([2]).

Secondly you claim that because Harper is a historian and not a linguist, he's unreliable. Since when are historians unreliable sources on the history of stuff (in this case a term)?Bless sins (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, "Liturgical Press" is not a reliable source, it's a Church organ. From their website:

"Liturgical Press began publishing for the Church in 1926. Since then, 81 gratifying years have passed, and our dedicated staff continues to sustain our original mission of proclaiming the Good News of Jesus Christ."

Major dictionaries are clearly the way to go here. - Merzbow (talk) 04:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This entry is not meant to be a dictionary item, and there should be no blanket ban on other resources. (Though, this does not exclude dictionaries from being legitimate sources.)Bless sins (talk) 04:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Tigeroo's version was written primarily sourced off of the Liturgical Press book. Even assuming that's a reliable source for anything other than the Catholic Church's own opinion, it's a far less reliable source than major dictionaries. - Merzbow (talk) 05:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The dictionary is only reliable for the English language word in usage at the time of it's printing. It is by no means an authority or even comprehensive in its treatment of concepts, which is why we have the sister project, the wikitionary (WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary}. It is a verifiable source and appears to have a favorable peer-review that says it's coverage is not limited to a Catholic centric (PS: Having a POV does not make a source non RS either).--Tigeroo (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a Catholic printing press with the specific declared mission of "proclaiming the Good News of Jesus Christ". The authors are Catholic theologians. I'm not saying it can't be used, but this article is not about the Catholic theological concept of "infidel", it's about the English word. - Merzbow (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Umm have you read WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and the RfC, if you want I can take the Infidel (concept) to another page and then run an AfD on Infidel (the dictionary word). They all actually say it cannot be just about the word because we have the wikitionary for such a thing, which would by nature be short. Plus where do you think the word or it's come from? Infidel is defined in "religious" terms. Anyway I have pulled in other dictionary references, which actually again specifically signal Christian usage of the term. Maybe they are onto to something too after all. Once again note, the cited source is not a Catholic Centric discussion but more of well rounded discussion of the term. While the authors may be catholic theoligans the book is actualy commented on for it's looking beyond that view. I have supported such use of that with more "mainstream" sources as well as a second citation.--Tigeroo (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact, the discussion in the RfC above seems to have gone against your attempt to have this article be about Catholic theology, instead of the primary meanings of the word. - Merzbow (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Infidel#Request_for_Comment:_Infidel_Dictionary_Terms and seeWikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary. The policy is quite clear, the article in Wikipedia cannot be about the word. I see the article as branching into the historical religious, social and philosophical impact of the term vs. the word. Dictionaries such as Webster and Oxford highlight the Christian connection for the word, why are you then surprised when the discussion of the term invariably has shades of this religion. If you know of any other non-dictionary relevance of the article, please add it and we can re-evaluate how on target the article intro is in such light. So far I have seen none, except for persistent blanking of material that does not fit an "English-language dictionary". These actions are actually against cited policy. Have you even read the intro or seen the see also's that you have blindly reverted? They are synonyms of associated concepts and references for the intro material available in the Webster and Oxford dictionary, how does that fit with the unhelpful not a Catholic wiki comment on the revert?--Tigeroo (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, and that's what it does. But it certainly won't be focusing only on the Catholic meaning of the term. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Violating policy is not fine. Policy is quite clear on this score, it certainly cannot be focused only on the the dictionary term. The article is doing what it should be doing, naturally evolving to focus on whatever matter is relevant to the article. The intro is already not a Catholic centric view, its your turn bring to something to article. If you feel something is missing or lacking add to it not blank.--Tigeroo (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The article itself must represent the common and comprehensive meaning of the term, not just the Catholic one. Please stop suppressing all non-Catholic meanings. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read the lead, it does exactly that and not talk about the Catholic meaning. Be reminded, WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary is there because the dictionary is not a source for a comprehensive meaning. If something is missing add it, removing information in noway creates a comprehensive article, just stunted one.--Tigeroo (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and it's not whitewashed either. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You will have to explain what is being whitewashed. So far I just see you attempting to do so as demonstrated by this [3] inspite of the sourced and verified sources provided in the preceding thread.--Tigeroo (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed; Tigeroo, you have no consensus for your rewrite, please stop trying to force it. - Merzbow (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The consensus on the RfC on this page has been against the Wikipedia as a dictionary term and is enshrined in policy so I assume this is not what you are referring to and which is basically Jayg's Argumentum ad nauseam (Even that insufficient argument does not hold any water anymore as even English language dictionary entries have been provided to support the current version of the lead). If there is another issue in particular that you are referring to, than I have been willing to work with it as can be evidenced from the fact that the article has moved a long way from the predominantly Catholic Encyclopedia information version. Once again consider yourself challenged to substantiate your positions.--Tigeroo (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop mis-stating and mis-representing the consensus on this page. Also, it's rather amusing that you would allege that the "consensus" was "against the Wikipedia as a dictionary term", and then proceed to insert your own preferred dictionary usage. In any event, there is no consensus for your repeating your Argumentum ad nauseam; work on the Talk: page, rather than edit-warring your non-consensus version in. Jayjg ^(talk) 11:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

And what is may this Argumentum ad nauseam of mine be??? Inspite of asking, I still don't see any outstanding issue having been identified for me to work with here on the Talk:page. Just more unhelpful and childish parroting, non-specific repetitions of discredited or no longer applicable positions, vague innuendos and disruptive reversions. Nothing that lends itself to dialog. Instead of trying to appear all sanctimonious, consider this question when you next "work on the Talk: page": Just what is it achieving and how did your last post contribute towards advancing any possible resolution?--Tigeroo (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

A couple of things:

• Jayjg please don't mark you major edits as minor. I'll assume it was an honest mistake.[4]
• I'm restoring this edit as no one seems to have further responded to my comments on 20:31, 10 May 2008, and it seems to have gotten lost in the reversions.Bless sins (talk) 05:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The Etymology Online website is a personal website of a non-linguist. It is not a reliable source. Please don't use it again. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The Lead - Explanation to provide a basis for constructive discussion

Para 1: Infidel (literally "one without faith") is a general term used for unbelievers. Introduces the term in a manner that fits "all alternative definitions of the word", theological and English language usage. The word infidel, is an archaic term designating a person who rejects some or all of the essential doctrines of one's own religion or rejects the existence of God - specifically a Muslim to a Christian, a Christian to a Muslim and a Gentile to a Jew. Elaborates the first sentence, showing the datedness of the term and highlighting specific common usages. First paragraph ends providing a broad-overview and leading into the next paragraph.

Para 2: In particular, the term has been used by Christians to describe non-Christians or those perceived as enemies of Christianity, including monotheistic Muslims, and in such usage is distinguishable from heathen or pagan. Start with it's usage in terms of Christians. Rationale: 1) The term originates from and describes a Christian-centric concept 2)All dictionaries include, even give non-Christian as a definition, (this also clarifies the difference in usage of the term from other terms with this meaning, heathen and pagan) it while some do not even mention the other two religious systems leading into this para. This covers common usage of the term which is placed before the theological.

In traditional Christian usage, it is an ecclesiastical term referring to one who does not believe in the divinity of Jesus but also knowingly holds beliefs that contradict Catholic dogma, or one who has not been baptized (not faithful). In its broadest sense, it means anyone who has not embraced the Christian faith (the faithful) Describes the theological pinnings of the term and helps orient the reader to the much of the historical discourses involving the term that will be involved because of the historicity and origin of the term.

Missing information of possible inclusion here: As applied historically by Christians to Jews.

When used in an Islamic sense it serves as a translation of the Arabic word kafir (literally the one who "covers", in the sense of hiding) - referring to those who do not believe in the one god - which includes atheists and polytheists but not Christians, Jews and Zorastrians who are known instead as the "People of the Book (Ahl-e-kitab}" Describes the next significant common use association of the term:Islam and the theological difference.

In English usage, especially in fiction and poetic usage, Infidel is often presented as a Muslim descriptor referring to Christians Acknowledges that while there exists a different definition for the terms, in the English language it is applied and reference to Islam with the same meaning as the Christian conception.

Ignored: Gentile - Not significant enough to be rementioned.

Missing Paragraph 4: Historical and social aspects of the concept, influence on political, philosophical and legal issues. (To be added when the article has matured with relevant content or whenever someone sources it.)

Explain specific objections, suggest remedies and lets move focused discussion towards resolving issues.--Tigeroo (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tigeroo. I've produced a compromise version, based on both the consensus version and your own. Unfortunately, your version misrepresented sources: for example, it presented

• "From the Muhammadean point of view, especially as presented in English fiction and poetry, infidel often means a Christian"

as

• "In English usage, especially in fiction and poetic usage, Infidel is often presented as a Muslim descriptor referring to Christians".

The source was talking about the term from the Muslim point of view, and you tried to turn it into a discussion of how English language speakers "presented" Muslims. Please don't do that again. Also, the sources are nearly unanimous in indicating that this term is mostly relevant in Islam and Christianity; for some reason you keep trying to find something, anything really, that will implicate Judaism too, though the term is not actually used in Judaism. Please avoid WP:UNDUE in the future. Now, since we're starting from this compromise version, please constructively propose any changes here on the Talk: page, rather than continually revert-warring in your personal version. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the proposed version both contravenes wikipedia (not a dictionary) policy and focuses on a narrow interpretation instead of a more inclusive version. Secondly it does not propose where the original version fails, you will have to take the time to be as descriptive with your listing and explanations as I have been so I can even begin to understand how what propose can be seen as a compromise, currently I just see a reversion. Content issues raised so far:

1)As for the sentence that is being read as a misrepresentation shows me no difference (i.e. I do not see the meaning you seem to imply me as misrepresenting) in meaning or intent in the version I proposed vs. your change so it can stay. 2)The next item about Judaism is actually as per a source which specifically makes mentions all three of these religions, another source mentions only Christianity and another mentions only Christianity and Islam. Clearly a source does not agree that it has no association with Judaism (it gives an example:Gentile), what they all do show is it that the term is primarily a term with Christian connotations, associated with Islam in English and Judaism. I agree that the Judaic association is not strong as that of Christianity or Islam and undue has been addressed by not making anymore than passing mention, unlike the discussions on the other two faiths. These line item discussions are more fruitful in understanding positions and taking things toward a compromise. Also refrain from calling versions consensus when it is clearly just your version.--Tigeroo (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, sources for Judaism's relation have been provided at Talk:Infidel#Source_that_directly_equate_.22goy.22_and_.22gentile.22_with_infidel.. I disagree that wikipedia should give exclusive attention to the above two religions. We should report on whatever religion sources report on.Bless sins (talk) 03:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The sources predominantly relate the term to Islam and Christianity. WP:UNDUE. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Each of them refers to Judaism. Are you saying that all have them make no reference to Judaism?Bless sins (talk) 03:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Tigeroo managed to google up a couple of peripheral references that use "Judaism" and "infidel" on the same page, and one that even uses the term "goyim". As I said, WP:UNDUE. And, as always, please review begging the question. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether the references were "google[d]" up or yahooed up doesn't really matter. What matters is that they are reliable sources. If you disagree with that, then state your objections clearly.

WP:UNDUE doesn't apply since Judaism is a significant religion whose views are often presented alongside those of Islam and Christianity.

Finally, I'll be more than happy to review a wiki policy (but please also quote it though), but will not necessarily review articles on wikipedia.Bless sins (talk) 03:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No violation of UNDUE is seen here because it has not over focused it's attention on it. UNDUE is not the same as blanking which has resulted in the removal this information inspite of an existing association (see the reliable sources cited.)--Tigeroo (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course there is. The sources invariably indicate that the term is almost exclusively relevant to Christianity and Islam. You, however, have managed to google up a page that referred to Judaism as well, so you could stick Judaism in the lead too. Regardless of this one source, however, the term is still almost exclusively used in relation to Christianity and Islam, and so the lead needs to reflect that, rather than apologetic edits. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The sources actually do not indicate that. A survey of the sources indicate that the term is predominantly relevant to Christianity and while quite applicable to any religion have made special mention of Islam and Judaism, in that order of weightage. WP:Undue handles issues on how much coverage is being given to one versus the other. In that sense the Judaic entry is being given it's proper LOW Weightage in the article, just contrast it with the other two. Also the so called by-the way "googled" entry or assumption of a "single source" is either a blatant misrepresentation or a grave error, there are multiple RS sources cited in the above relevant thread. Also most dictionaries, your own personal favorite source for establishing this kind of linkage for this article, widely list Gentile and Goy as synonyms of Infidel. The linkage is irrefutable and your assumption that there is no linkage of Infidel with Judaism is erroneous and the blanking of this linkage is incorrect.--Tigeroo (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll just quote the first source in the article:

"An unbeliever with respect to a particular religion, especially Christianity or Islam" - "Infidel", The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Also, your claim of "multiple RS cited" is quite false; please stop misrepresenting. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Really, Jayjg an RS has been provided. If it is undue wieght, then we move it down in the body and reduce it. htat doesn't mean remove it completely And if I remember correctly, Tigeroo provided 3 sources. Finally, please don't refute the sources because they were 'googled". the search engine used to find sources is of no relevance.Bless sins (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Many RS have been provided, only one mentions Jews, yet Tigeroo insists on putting that in the lead. And the fact that he kept searching for a definition of infidel that mentioned Jews or Judaism is quite relevant, as he used it to violate WP:UNDUE. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason to list further sources connecting Gentile to Judaism was because it was asked, again (note these are different from the ones provided earlier), because of your insistence that they didn't exist. Also to understand why I have listed these following sources, I recommend you go reread my explanation for the change in Para1 instead of speculating on some agenda and attempting to confuse the once again lost argument. Also, there are three sources cited connecting infidel to gentile, not just the one as you misrepresent and furthermore if you take note of the nature of the sources, your will realize that they actually represent "widespread usage" and so mention by one means that the matter is not a fringe or non-noteworthy opinion.--Tigeroo (talk) 05:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Never denied it, however using only that singular quote in exclusion, beyond the obvious fallacy of relying on a dictionary to comprehensively define anything but a word, is actually undue weight as counterquotes to one you have googled up quote can testify:

The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English, Oxford University Press, 2008

in·fi·del / ˈinfədl; -ˌdel/ • n. chiefly archaic a person who does not believe in religion or who adheres to a religion other than one's own: [as pl. n.] (the infidel) they wanted to secure the Holy Places from the infidel. • adj. adhering to a religion other than one's own: the infidel foe. ORIGIN: late 15th cent.: from French infidèle or Latin infidelis, from in- ‘not’ + fidelis ‘faithful’ (from fides ‘faith,’ related to fidere ‘to trust’). The word originally denoted a person of a religion other than one's own, specifically a Muslim (to a Christian), a Christian (to a Muslim), or a Gentile (to a Jew)."

Note: The date and the religions specifically taken into mention include Judaism.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, 1996

infidel non-Christian XV; professed unbeliever XVI. — F. infidèle or L. infidēlis unfaithful, (eccl.) unbelieving, f. IN-2 + fidēlis faithful, f. fidēs FAITH.

Note: no mention of Islam or Judaism.

"infidel." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2008.

1: one who is not a Christian or who opposes Christianity2 a: an unbeliever with respect to a particular religion b: one who acknowledges no religious belief3: a disbeliever in something specified or understood

Note again: No mention of either Islam or Judaism, reference usage as a general term for any religion; special mention reserved only for Christianity

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary. 1996, 1998

In"fi*del\, n. One who does not believe in the prevailing religious faith; especially, one who does not believe in the divine origin and authority of Christianity; a Mohammedan; a heathen; a freethinker. Note: Infidel is used by English writers to translate the equivalent word used by Mohammedans in speaking of Christians and other disbelievers in Mohammedanism.

Note again: No mention of Islam except as a translation word for Kafir, singled out mention is for Christianity.

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Thesaurus, pg 406

Infidel adj, syn, HEATHEN, ethnic, gentile, infidelic, pagan, profane

The Chambers Thesaurus

atheist, unbeliever, nonbeliever, infidel, idolater TECHNICAL Gentile OLD paynim FORMAL nullifidian FJ believer • adj heathen, irreligious, atheistic

Gentile is synonymous with Infidel in both, who make no mention whatsoever with Kafir.

Conclusion: The relevance of Gentile/ Judaic has been established and my premise for saying no WP:UNDUE exists holds as stated.--Tigeroo (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, there is no undue weightage to include the reference to Gentile, since it is sourced and verifiable from a very reputable sources the connection is also quite clearly established here. I don't really see a contradiction here so not sure what the issue is, its seem clear that the usage is primarily either in relation to Christianity or in relation to any religion in general. Maybe Jayg needs to be clearer with his objections, I did not understand the basis for his revision at all. In any case I think this argument loses out on the basis that one cannot exclude from the article what another article has included. I also agree that the article is making the mistake of over-orienting itself from an English language dictionary.--Salikk (talk) 01:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Claiming the "usage is primarily either in relation to Christianity" is instantly falsifiable. Search "infidel" in Google News, scroll through about 20 pages of reliable sources, and see for yourself - about 95% of current usage is in reference to Islam. We're not going to misrepresent this situation to readers. - Merzbow (talk) 03:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not really issue, we have a RS here quoted here from Webster that explains it. As the closest association that native English speakers, even though not technically the same, is used to refer to and translate Kafir, which I see does have its own page which details that aspect quite well. That factoid is mentioned and noted here. Unless you are telling me the word Infidel is related to Islamic theology like it is with Christian theology I don't see any of the purported falsification that you accuse me of here. Would like to point to a sentence in the article that is patently false? We could deal with it then. P.S. I still don't see what your talk post has to do with the revert. The revert remains completely unexplained. What is your particular disagreement with it?--Salikk (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Merzbow, I'm curious as to how you got to the the "95%" figure. Did you count all the sources.

Secondly, since when is wikipedia suppsoed be in accordance with the "current usage". We have articles on historical concepts that are of little relevance today.

Finally, beware the search engine test when used for notability.Bless sins (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As both Tigeroo's sources and the sources in the article show, only one dictionary/thesaurus definition even mentions Jews. None of the rest do, but they do mention Islam and Christianity, so it's quite obvious that essentially copying the sole dictionary definition that actually mentions Jews is WP:UNDUE. We will be starting with the non-policy violating version: now let's talk about a way of reasonably representing the weight of the sources, given that we will not be using Tigeroo's lede that violates WP:UNDUE. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

See above comment on how the nature and the number of the sources precludes mention by it from resulting in it quotation being WP:UNDUE. Also read the notes provided with the quotes that illustrate the purpose of their usage by me, a number of them also make no mention of Islam either and I am not arguing exclusion on that note either. Also, note we are actually starting with the definition that encompasses the wider meaning of the term and nor are we really focusing on the Judaic term, a mention of a significant conception thought widely enough held to report is not WP:UNDUE. Especially, when it's inclusion has been weighted so that it is emphasized the least, it coverage is just three words in one sentence in three paragraphs!!! Atleast, we have settled that the argument that sources are "exclusively relevant to Christianity and Islam." is not relevant.

You might want to take a leaf out of my book explain the logic of your version if you want it to be used as a basis of discussion. Since I have taken the initiative, we actually have a basis of discussion now so lets roll with that. Engaging in a revert war on the basis of one item objection prior to discussion is not conducive to discussion, especially on marginal claims of undue when the version reverted to is a clear violation not a dictionary.--Tigeroo (talk) 05:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Since I've explained at length why your version violates policy, we'll start with the non policy-violating version, and then we can discuss exactly how and when your attempts to unduly emphasize non-Islamic meanings should be incorporated. Jayjg ^(talk) 11:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The WP:Undue Question

Why mention of Gentile is not UNDUE:

1. Dictionaries represent a "significant" and "widely held" view. Mention by any major one represents valid proof of a "significant" view, ergo deserves mention. How can be addressed in further discussion.
2. Some dictionaries do not even mention Islam as shown in the quotes. Non-mention in some does not constitute a basis for exclusion when the association has been made by another.
3. Gentile-Judaism has been shown to have been listed by a major one, one which singles out it for special mention among others. Note, in a less verbose version the Oxford actually does not mention any religion at all, just the general term and non-Christian.
4. Furthermore Thesaurii have also been quoted that list Gentile as a synonym of Infidel.
5. Judaism and the term Gentile receives significantly less coverage in the discussion than the others also specifically mentioned, Christianity and Islam.--Tigeroo (talk) 05:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

"Gentile" and "Judaism" are not the same thing, and while many definitions of "infidel" mention Christianity and Islam, and some specifically state it refers particularly to Christianity and Islam, only one refers to Judaism. Rather unsurprisingly, as soon as you googled up that specific definition, it was the one you decided to quote verbatim in the the lede. Therefore a mention of Judaism, particularly in the lede, is a violation of WP:UNDUE. Jayjg ^(talk) 11:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The least we can all agree upon is that the sources do not support a Judaic version of the term as being nearly as important as the Christian/Muslim version. - Merzbow (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Corrections

The word Infidel can be applied to atheists, to a POV of any religion towards non-beleivers as well as to causes and beliefs beyond just religion. I think you guys got caught up with that argument and ignored what even the dictionary is saying. I added these interpretations to make the intro actually cover all the meanings of the term in the order they are generally listed by the dictionaries cited.

Also added another citation that reflects that generally today infidel is translated as unbeliever rather than Infidel by all level headed for both its accuracy and to avoid the kind of heated debate that comes from the fact that it is non PC to call folk infidel today.

I also deleted the first sentence in the Islam section since this is already written into the lead making it an unnecessary repetition.

Cheers guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.80.43.97 (talk) 23:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Infidels under canon law and Colonization of the Americas

This section appears to include original research that is neither neutral or germane to the article. While one might reference the Inter caetera as being related to sub-paragraph on the Colonization of the Americas, the section leapfrogs to 19th century and spuriously links U.S. Supreme Court rulings as alleged examples of infidels under canon law. and misleadingly connects said rulings to the inter caetera. While the cited U.S. Supreme court decisions are covered in other articles, I see no linkage to include them in this article on infidels.Markbyrn (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism

In Islam, only Christianity and Judaism are recognized as true religions and predecessors of Islam. Zoroastrianism is just another man-made religion in the Islamic view point. Why is it listed alongside Christians and Jews? I'm sure the term "infidel" applies to them, if it applies to all polytheists or followers of a non-Abrahamic religion.

Note that in Islam, Shirk refers to the worship of or the giving of godly characteristics to anyone or anything other than Allah, be it singular or plural deities or other other worshiped creatures and objects. This means that Shirk can be applied to Christians for worshiping Jesus who is but a human being according to Islam, or the Holy Spirit which is non-existent in Islam, for instance, or for the Christian and Jewish gods because they are not the same as Allah, and to certain sects of Islam itself. However, Islam classifies Jews and Christians as People of the Book, having believed in earlier messages and Prophets but not the latest, and thus prohibits calling them Kufar, or infidels. The same applies to sects of Islam, I would think. UltimateDarkloid (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Addition of unsourced OR

Anupam (talk · contribs) has added the following unsourced paragraph to this article:

===Judaism===
The Hebrew word Kofer is cognate to the Arabic kafir, but only designates apostates, i.e., those who rejected Judaism. Non-Jews are referred to as 'Goy or Gentile.

Can Anupam explain why he is edit-warring in unsourced material, and what it has to do with the term Infidel? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Jayjg, this clearly was not the point of my reversal of your edit. You can remove this paragraph or place an unsourced tag if you would like. My concern is with your mass removal of the introduction. Islam has its own article on the subject, titled kafir, which is discussed later in the article. Please discuss your removals rather than edit warring. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 00:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You've edit-warred in unsourced OR three times now; don't you think it would make sense for you to correct those policy violations by removing it? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll make the better discussion and place an "sources" banner under the "Judaism" section. Also, don't send me false warnings when you are the one who was previously edit warring with an anonymous IP address. I reverted your edit once before your accusation because you clearly removed a plethora of information from the introduction. Therefore, it is you, that will be violating WP:3RR, if you revert my corrections. Why don't you state the reason that you supplanted the well referenced lead with your own version? I look forward to hearing your response. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

To begin with, don't edit-war in and tag unsourced material. If it's not sourced, and someone objects, then leave it out, per WP:V. Also, I haven't sent you any "false warnings"; are you actually denying that the "anonymous IP address" is you? Finally, there was no "well-referenced lead" supplanted"; the sources were actually quite poor, and they removed properly sourced material. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you accusing me for being the anonymous IP address? I am a well respected editor on this encyclopedia and do not take kindly to your assumptions of bad faith. Go ahead and perform a checkuser if it makes you feel better. If you actually looked at the edit, you would see that I retained your paragraph on Islam albeit I restored your removal in the introduction. Now, please kindly address the content issue, not me. I look forward to your comments on the content of this article. With regards, Anupam^Talk 01:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If you say you're not the IP editor, then I'll take your word for it. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I am fine with leaving your introductory sentence in the article. However, I object to your removal of the following information:

Infidel is an ecclesiastical term in Christianity. It was used by the Roman Catholic Church to refer to any person who did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, knowingly held beliefs that contradicted Catholic dogma, or had not been baptized. The term was also used by other Christian denominations, such as the Methodist Church, to refer to those who did not profess Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour. It was also used by Christians to describe non-Christians or those perceived as enemies of Christianity. Current usage distinguishes between non-Christians and non-believers (persons without religious affiliations or beliefs).

Could you please explain why you removed this information? I look forward to hearing from you soon. If not, I will reinstate this information in the introduction soon. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 01:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

References

Let's look at your sources here:

1. 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia [5]
2. Russell B. Shaw, Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Our Sunday Visitor's Catholic Encyclopedia, Our Sunday Visitor Publishing, 1998, ISBN 0879736690 p. 535.
3. "The Wesleyan-Methodist magazine: A Dialogue between a Believer and an Infidel". Oxford University. http://books.google.com/books?id=kxEEAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA305&dq=A+Dialogue+between+a+Believer+and+an+Infidel&cd=1#v=onepage&q=A%20Dialogue%20between%20a%20Believer%20and%20an%20Infidel&f=false. Retrieved 2007-03-25.
4. "The Methodist review, Volume 89". Phillips & Hunt. http://books.google.com/books?id=gslWAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA972&dq=infidel+methodist&cd=1#v=onepage&q=infidel%20methodist&f=false. Retrieved 2007-03-25. "Is it conceivable that a Spirit which is invisible, and imponderable, and impalpable, and yet which is the seat of physical and moral powers, really occupies the universe? The infidel scoffs at the idea. We observe, however, that this same infidel implicitly believes in the existence of an all-pervading luminiferous ether, which is invisible, and imponderable, and impalpable, and yet is said to be more compact and more elastic than any material substance we can see and handle."
6. "Infidel denotes one who is not Christian or opposes Christianity; it is used by Christians especially to designate monotheists (as Muslim) who do not subscribe to the Judeo-Christian concept of God, and in such distinguishable from heathen or pagan." Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Synonyms, p. 71

Now, which ones do you actually consider to be reliable? As far as I can tell, only the last one, but it doesn't even quote its source properly. So, in fact, no reliable sources, unless you have some other explanation. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

What is wrong with the Methodist sources? They make explicit reference to the term infidel in their publication. If you do not wish to see it in the lead, I will make a separate section for it in the article. I look forward to hearing from you soon. With regards, Anupam^Talk 01:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The first Methodist source is a religious sermon, and doesn't even have the quote in it. The second is a strange religious tract that is over 100 years old. What on earth would make either reliable? You replaced modern, reliable dictionaries with this mess. Do you have any explanation for inserting false quotes from sources? You do know that you're responsible for everything you insert into an article, even if you're reverting, don't you? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding? My quotes are found in those sources - read them again. The fact that the publications are older ("strange" is your POV) does not mean that one should discredit history. The Methodist publications demonstrate that the term "infidel" was used by the Methodist Church and this can be mentioned within the article. Please click on both sources again and reevaluate your conjecture. With regards, Anupam^Talk 01:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the Methodist magazine, I mixed up the sources. I did, however, look in Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Synonyms, and that's not what it says under "infidel". Also, regarding source 3, why would one quote a 200 year-old letter to the editor/primary source? You need to find reliable sources that actually discuss the term, not just ones that use it, per WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It's alright, don't worry about it. The fact is that the two Methodist sources demonstrate that the term "infidel" was historically in the parlance of the United Methodist Church. I can use the two sources in support of the statement "The ecclesiastical term was also used by the Methodist Church in reference to unbelievers." Also, WP:NOR is not relevant here as the text was published by Oxford University. Do you support my conclusion here? I look forward to your response. If its okay, I will incorporate the information and the two references in the article. Thanks in advance. With regards, Anupam^Talk 03:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it's exactly the opposite; you're using WP:PRIMARY sources, and unreliable ones at that, since they're letters to the editor to a religious magazine etc. Does either one of them state that infidel is an "ecclesiastical term was also used by the Methodist Church in reference to unbelievers"? Or is that your own conclusion based on WP:PRIMARY sources? If the source indeed makes this claim, then please quote it doing so. You need to find sources that discuss the term and its usage, not simply sources that use it. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concern. I can however, state that "The ecclesiastical term was also used by the Methodist Church." This statement does have the backing of the two sources plus many more publications which you can view in Google Books. I also found another Methodist source, which refers to infidels as ones "without faith" (http://books.google.com/books?id=wQcFAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA72&dq=meaning+of+infidel+methodist&lr=&cd=23#v=onepage&q&f=false). Thanks, Anupam^Talk 03:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just noticed that most of the arguments are already made in this discussion page above, on the christian usage of the word both from dictionaries and religion specific sources as well as linking goy and gentile with the word infidel etc. So maybe the question of the missing sources may simply be because they got lost in earlier edit conflicts and just need to be reinstated by a helpful editor.--213.132.45.37 (talk) 09:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

They're the same sources (or lack thereof) with the same failings. They didn't "get lost in earlier edit conflicts", they were removed because they were inappropriate. They haven't magically gotten more appropriate since then. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I see, you were party to an earlier disagreement. I didnt really see anything wrong with the lede you truncated. With wikipedia project articles are work always, so I feel it would have been better to leave it in and edit to improve it where you felt it was lacking rather than remove it since nothing was factually wrong with it.--213.132.45.37 (talk) 08:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you can't see why using unreliable sources is inappropriate, then I can't really help, except to suggest you review the relevant policies, WP:V and WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I looked at those, there is no clash with WP:V or WP:NOR, but instead there is a problem with accuracy and undue weight WP:undue with the lede now. Most of the previous we sourced to sources that are still cited inline in the lede, but the information that they represents seems to be missing in favor of a language dictionary term i.e An Introductory Dictionary of Theology and Religious Studies. I dont know if you are just opposed to a definition of a religious or from a religious publication confirming and elucidating on it. If anything, a language dictionary is itself not a WP:RS source for defining infidel in the lede for anything more than a dictionary usage, which the article is not.--213.132.45.37 (talk) 05:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there was a clash with WP:V and WP:NOR, as explained, and simply contradicting me isn't really making an argument. This isn't The Argument Sketch. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material

anupam (talk · contribs) has removed the following sourced material from the lede:

'''Infidel''' (literally "one without faith") is an [[English language|English]] word meaning "one who doubts or rejects central tenets of a [[religion]] or has no religious beliefs", especially in reference to [[Islam]].<ref>"An believer with respect to a particular religion, especially Islam" - "Infidel", The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.</ref><ref>"Infidel", Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.</ref><ref>"'Infidel' has been used by Christians and Muslims to name the people outside their religious group, the ones who do not have faith (fides in Latin)." Weckman, pp. 64–65.</ref><ref name= "Intro"> "Infidel" in ''An Introductory Dictionary of Theology and Religious Studies'', p. 630</ref><ref>Oxford University Press, ''[http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O27-infidel.html The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology], 1996</ref>

Could Anupam explain why he is edit-warring out this relevant, sourced, cited material? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Why are you starting multiple discussions for one edit? Please kindly draw your attention to the discussion above. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The section is about edit-warring in unsourced material and then, when challenged, removing of content by reverting it with a less than correct edit summary.Then, when challenged, merely tagging it as unsourced is edit warring in it's purest form. It should be avoided so please discuus any changes here and wait for a consensus to be made.—Sandahl (♀) 01:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Anupam, I started this section because there were multiple issues with your edits.Why are you discussing multiple concerns in a single section? Please respond here on this issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

As I told you above, I am fine with your introductory sentence. I just wish to readd the sourced information you deleted in the introduction that I pasted above. I hope this addresses your concern. With regards, Anupam^Talk 01:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

But the material you edit-warred in instead used unreliable sources, and falsely quoted two of them. See above. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The quotes were genuine. Please read the sources closely before coming to unsupported confirmation biases. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 01:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, one was, you are correct. A 200 year-old letter to the editor. Hard to imagine how that would satisfy WP:RS and WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The dictionary term is clearly insufficient. Dictionary definitions need to be used with care. The term infidel is not just an English language word, as both the sources from the Catholic and the Methodist sources show. It is even seen in the Oxford Dictionary. Clearly, the history of the term is much greater than for the lede to be limited by presentism. The age of the sources, does not necessarily make them unreliable or unverifiable. I do not see how that them violating wikipedia material and lacking a corresponding sources expanding or updating the material it should be left in. The article also seemed to have indicated that material belonged to the catholic encylopedia, and just like the jewish encylopedia and other sources it is valid until the equivalent source can be sourced from a better one. Modern does not equal better.--213.132.45.37 (talk) 08:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello 213.132.45.37! I appreciate your comments and agree with your assessment. Could you please propose the revisions you wish to enter into the article? I look forward to your comments. With regards, Anupam^Talk 12:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

213.132.45.37, your statement doesn't seem to address any of the issues raised. Can you re-state your thoughts in terms of Wikipedia's content policies? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Umm, sure. The lede as it currently stands is false or at best incomplete for the following reasons:

A) Infidel is more than just an English word. Ecclesiastical was a good description. It is a word and term with a rather specific meaning within Church ideology with both Theological and legal implications, and associated centuries of European history and its implication on politics, philosophy, law etc. etc. The word and concept transcends just being an English word, so whether it was Latin, French, German, Spanish etc. it held. Being labeled an Infidel used to result in courts not accepting your testimony etc.

B) That brings us to there being no mention of Christianity in the lede - only Islam....Infidel is definitely not a word within the jargon or terminology of Islam, at best Infidel it is an approximation of a similar concept in Christianity for a person of another belief system that is applied to translate Kafir to English. Goy, Gentile, gaiour, mlechha etc. etc. get the similar treatment in common parlance. Agreed, that Islam is current topic so it occurs more often today in that regard.

C) There are 5 references to the lede, neither of which reflect the lede. They all emphasize Christianity and as a dictionary term they include references to usage beyond just religious credos. None of which are reflected in the lede either.

D) Which brings us to inappropriateness and inherent flaws of using a language based dictionary to define a concept. The above show how it fails to capture the meanings of the word beyond the "current" common usage of the word, in the specific language of usage. The following pages I think cover what this article seems have to done by falling into a definition trap. Presentism (literary and historical analysis), Chronological snobbery, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Fallacies_of_definition#Over-narrow_definitions.

In summary, the better position to start with would be Anupam proposed lede as it not factually incorrect at all and fuller and the work towards fixing it for the specific objections or issues. It makes less sense to replace it with a truncated and wrong lede and build it. I am not even sure what you believe is wrong or erroneous in its content.--213.132.45.37 (talk) 07:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If you feel the lede should summarize more material from the body of the article, perhaps you can point to which specific material. Regarding the "5 references to the lede, neither of which reflect the lede. They all emphasize Christianity", did you read the actual quote from the sources? Admittedly, one of them appears to have been vandalized, which I've now fixed. But the quotes themselves refer to both Christianity and Islam. I've added Christianity to the lede. Finally, starting from a version that uses un-reliable sources and original research can never be a good thing. It makes absolutely no sense, in fact. It's best to build from the current, small, but well-sourced and accurate lede. What specific statements would you like to add? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible OR removed for verification

I've removed the following possible OR for verification:

the notion of gentiles (non-Israelites), goy (non-Jew)

A request for a quotation has been up for five days. Does the source tie this material directly to the notion of "infidel"? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Gentiles is from the same source the IESS directly under infidel, goy is listed as being a disparaging version of gentile.--213.132.45.37 (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

But what does it have to do with the topic of this article, "Infidel"? The IESS entry on "Infidels" never mentions the term "goy". Jayjg ^(talk) 00:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Confusing, unclear sentence

213.132.45.37 (talk · contribs) has inserted the following sentence into this article:

During modern times, a revival of Jewish culture, by reform movements such as the Conservative or Orthodox, has resulted in a reinstituted emphasis on the seperation of Jewish and gentile cultures.

This is confusing and unclear. How is Orthodox Judaism a "reform movement"? What "emphasis on the seperation of Jewish and gentile cultures" has Conservative Judaism "reinstituted"? And what does this have to do with the topic of this article? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems it should corrected to reform movements within Orthodox. The source appears to merely note that this has resulted in a restitution of emphasising a seperation of jewish vs. culture, and may be referring to a time of historic jewish political rule. This appears relevant in the context of a religious differentiona of the other and modern social developlments, as its elucidation in the source under infidel also indicates. It does not however specify the how of this, and this could be something that still needs expanding upon.--87.210.219.104 (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Which "reform movements within Orthodox" do you think it means? What does the "Conservative" bit mean? The Conservative movement started in the early 20th century, so why would it be "referring to a time of historic jewish political rule". This is a very confused and confusing sentence, that, again, seems factually incorrect. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, not really. As a concise note on a modern trend it is fine, just as the other sections dont get into which fundamentalist movements or which churches. Though of course it could be expanded in that direction. As for the other questions, you would have to ask the author and the publishers, generally what other thinks is not important if it is verifiable from a RS. Indeed, my thinking such as historic jewish rule maybe be flawed and wrong. If you can reword in a clearer manner to shed light go ahead, otherwise let it be unless you have a RS.--87.210.219.104 (talk) 10:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't explained what the source means; that's fine, because the source itself is confusing, and apparently factually incorrect. However, we can't slavishly copy a confused and confusing source simply because its there. Unless we get some other source that clarifies what this obscure copied sentence means, we can't use it. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"Heathen"

213.132.45.37 (talk · contribs) has inserted the word "heathen" into the article, in an apparent attempt explain? the phrase "gentile pagans". Aside from the fact that it means this article copies the source almost word-for-word, what additional information does it impart? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Heathen is the word used in the source, gentile pagan was used as a particular example of a heathen that was primarily implied (gentile pagan). It just appeared that if one or the other were to be used, heathen is more correct. The second sentence that was added was to bring the section in line with the other two which added a modern context.--213.132.45.37 (talk) 09:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

What additional information does "heathen" impart? I can't see any, aside from slavishly copying the source word-for-word. Please explain. Regarding the second sentence, a section on it has been opened above. Please explain there what it means, since it is not clear, and appears to be factually incorrect. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears that "heathen" is the notion or concept of infidels that the source refers to. Pagan gentiles is the redundant portion of the reference that can be done without as one adding no additional information.--87.210.219.104 (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, the source specifies exactly what it means by heathens - "specifically pagan gentiles". Therefore, it is the "pagan gentiles" portion of the phrase that is the salient one. Please don't remove wording that clarifies in favor of wording that obfuscates. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Well if only one is allowed then it would have to be heathens. Pagan gentiles only appears in brackets as an important example of heathens in the judaic view, and not necessarily the only one otherwise it would never have bothered to put in heathen and then also mention pagan gentile in a by the way manner to give an example. The best way to put it would actually be as it appears in this case, with pagan gentiles in brackets, otherwise emphasis is being shifted to where it was not placed in the source.--87.210.219.104 (talk) 10:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the source says "specifically pagan gentiles". "Heathens" is a vague term, which could mean many things, so the source clarifies that when it uses the word here, it means "specifically pagan gentiles". Rather than use the term even the source itself acknowledges is vague, we'll stick with the specific definition provided by the source. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Judeo-Christian?

What exactly are the areas of commonalty between the Christian and Jewish concept of god that are not shared by Muslims? john k (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand the question, or its particular relevant here. As far as I can tell, the Judaism and Islam have nearly identical concepts of God, which differ in significant ways from the Christian view, particularly around the issue of the Trinity - a central concept in Christianity. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The article says The term infidel was used by Christians to describe non-Christians or those perceived as the enemies of Christianity, especially to designate monotheists (Muslims) who do not subscribe to the Judeo-Christian concept of God. This doesn't make any sense to me, which is what I was trying to indicate with my previous comment. As you say, the Muslim and Jewish concepts of God are much closer to one another than either is to the Christian. There are other ways that Christianity and Judaism are closer to one another than either is to Islam, but the concept of God is not one of them. I understand that, in general, Muslims tended to be called Infidels while Jews, so far as I'm aware, generally were not. But this needs to be reworked. john k (talk) 05:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it makes little sense. There was an IP editor working on this page who slavishly copied any source that attributed the term's use to an religion besides Islam, and this seems more of the same. I suspect it should be removed, at least from the lead, since it uses archaic terms for Islam (see the quote in the footnote), and appears factually incorrect. Your thoughts? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Certainly the term "infidel" was once used by Christians to refer to Muslims, and I've generally not seen it so described to refer to Jews. But the particular wording is odd, even if it's taken from (plagiarized from, in fact) a source. What archaic terms for Islam are used in the foonotes? The footnote for the questionable sentence says "Muslims." john k (talk) 19:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, plagiarism was an on-going issue with this editor too (see above). The next sentence in the source (not included in the footnote) is "From the Muhammedan point of view, especially as presented in English fiction and poetry, infidel often means a Christian". That's what I meant by "archaic terms for Islam" (actually Muslim). How do you propose this should be re-worded? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

How about The term infidel was used by Christians to describe non-Christians or those perceived as the enemies of Christianity, especially to designate Muslims? john k (talk) 03:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me, but I'd leave out the phrase "to designate", which I don't think adds much. Why don't you change the lede to that? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Bigotry

"While, In the twenty-first century, religious fundamentalism, dividing the world into true believers and the rest, is associated with the growth of religious nationalism, violence, and terrorism.[4]"

My, my, my, how very bigoted. Who makes a blanket association of religious fundamentalism with terrorism? Ignorant bigots, that's who.

What is fundamentalism, other than a popularly-acceptable dirty word, a bad name to label others with? In its only decent sense, religious fundamentalism is the belief that the fundamentals of one's religion are true. In other words, religious people who are not fundamentalists are either hypocrites or idiots. Who but a hypocrite or an idiot would claim to follow a religion the fundamentals of which he did not believe to be correct?

Which people, believing the fundamentals of their religion to be true, act upon that belief by performing terrorist activities? Do Buddhists who believe the traditional understanding of the basis of their religion to be true perform terrorist acts due to that belief? What about Taoists? Do Wiccans? What about Christians who believe that traditional interpretations of their religion to be true? Do they perform terrorist acts due to that belief? How about Confucianists? Moslems? Do Moslems who believe the long-held understanding of their religion to be accurate perform terrorist acts due to their holding that belief? What of Zoroastorism?

Quoting bigots doesn't make their bigoted belief true, nor does it give value to your bigoted agreement with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.47.163 (talk) 04:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed the sentence, not only because it was poorly written, but because it was neither neutral or relevant to explaining "infidel".

However, if you can't argue a point without calling people idiots, maybe you need to reconsider the way you approach things. Calling people idiots just shows an inability on your part to rationalize or reason about your own position; if you could, you would have done that instead of appeal to emotion. So next time keep a level head.

Since you didn't actually present any argument aside from "You're all stupid listen to me", there isn't much more to say, except that you misunderstand what "fundamentalist" attempts to define. It doesn't mean "believes the fundamentals"...if that were the case, like you say, it would be redundant for a religious person to say so. If they didn't believe the fundamentals, they would either be deluded in their beliefs or an unbeliever of that faith. But instead of saying "aha, this seems stupid to me, so everyone but me must be stupid and this is wrong", perhaps you should instead ask "maybe I misunderstand the term".

The term just means a person takes the doctrine of their faith literally, without question. That is, a fundamentalist that believes the stories of the Book of Genesis are true would necessarily believe the universe was created in 6 days. However, a non-fundamentalist could interpret this as a story, rather than a historical account, and accept the universe is about 13.75 billion years old. They both share the same beliefs about the core of their religion, but don't necessarily share the view that their religious text is an infallible historical account.

Hope that clarifies, GManNickG (talk) 05:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Archaic?

I have removed the two words "chiefly archaic" from the introductory sentence as the word is still in vogue. For example, English translations of the Qur'an will employ the word to refer to non-believers. Moreover, most modern dictionaries do not classify the word as "archaic," while they classify other words such as "alack" to be archaic. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 03:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)