Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who left Islam (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Keep. Cbrown1023 21:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who left Islam[edit]

List of people who left Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

the general style of religious converts lists has always been "List of converts to X", because their conversion to X is what has been notable. a "List of people who left Islam" or "List of ex-A" is unnecessary and irrelevant because a) it falsely assumes ex-Y became so because of Y, and not because of their conviction in something else (i.e. religion X); b) it consists of unnecessary duplication, by "leaving Y" they have automatically become a "convert to X"'; c) there is no precedence for this as we do not have a "List of people who left Christianity", "List of people who left Hinduism", "List of people who left Athiesm", nor do we need it. d) the focus is inappropriately on negation, the title and entire purpose of such a list is implicitly loaded with a negative connotation against religion Y, and under the false premise discussed in point a) serves as a vehicle for propaganda/advocacy.

i have also included the following in this nom:

Delete all as unnecessary and irrelevant (previous AfD was no consensus, but it included all convert lists and not those exclusively associated with negatative identification like ex-A) -- ITAQALLAH 15:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That said I'll add that if it's kept it should be renamed to Former Muslims or List of ex-Muslims for consistency.--T. Anthony 14:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i think that renders argument c) as inapplicable. in the light of that, a Rename to 'List of ex-Muslims' may be more appropriate. ITAQALLAH 14:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'm not opposed to deleting all these "ex-religionist" lists even if I created one. Although for sake of balance I'd prefer they all be deleted, if not immediately then eventually, if one is deleted.--T. Anthony 14:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
note: i have changed the nomination to include lists of all ex-ABC's. ITAQALLAH 15:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well then weak delete all. I think things like this have a worse tendency to be non-neutral than conversion lists. Conversion lists aren't focused on what a person's rejecting, these more are. We have a List of foreign-born United States politicians, people joining something namely the US, but we wouldn't do List of politicians who renounced United States citizenship or something.--T. Anthony 16:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, List of ex-Muslims is a better name. --Matt57 19:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep or Delete the lists mentioned by T. Anthony with it Alf photoman 15:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But make sure to think about it, according to the extreme Muslims leaving Islam justifies a death fatwa --- we might be endangering lives Alf photoman 15:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If kept it needs to be verified and I'd be willing to put a "verify" deal on it. If people say they are ex-Muslims to the international press nothing we do here is likely to matter on the front you mean, but we should strongly avoid any "outing" or false reports on people. I think I'd mentioned at the talk page that verification is unusually urgent in this case.--T. Anthony 15:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to give in to terrorists? Those people in the lists are in no bigger danger than they were before being included in these lists. Even if they were safe before, we cant give in to terrorists, sorry. --Matt57 19:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find your arguments a little too strident and out of proportion to what you're responding to. The user was concerned for people's safety, but concerns with privacy or safety occur on many kinds of AfD debates not just this one. In addition I fear your statements indicate this list has a political purpose and if that's the case I will switch from weak to strong delete. Wikipedia lists are not the proper place to make "stands against terrorism" or push political agendas, even when they are agendas I agree with more or less. Perhaps these lists do provide valuable names when one is studying a valid cultural issue, but reasons like "the conversion lists stayed, so we need religion bashing lists for balance" or "we can't give in to terrorists/religious-zealots" strike me as invalid and prejudicial.--T. Anthony 11:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dont use my statements to change your nomination. Make your own judgement. The primary purpose of these lists is to classify information in another way. The lists are not redundant. I could claim that these lists should be kept because they help save the lives of African elephants, but if you disliked elephants and said these lists should be deleted - well that would be a wrong reason for you to choose to delete the lists. The primary purpose as I said is: these lists are not redundant and there are no lists on the internet like these. If you say Apostasy lists have a negative agenda, then Conversion lists have a positive agenda, do they not? The point is to look at these lists objevtively. Are they useful information? Yes. Are they redundant in any way? No.--Matt57 20:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 15:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Lists are just ways of categorizing people. If they converted from one religion to another, they left the first and converted to the second. IMO, it's non-neutral to prefer only the "positive," lists of what they joined, rather than the "negative," lists of what they left, as one assumes someone left a religion for a negative reason, rather than joined another for a positive reason. Only a weak keep because it's rather a boring category, still, it is just a list. KP Botany 16:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep all per KP Botany. I was going to say "delete all as meaningless point-scoring", but it's true that this style of list provides a kind of NPOV balance to the "converts to..." lists. — coelacan talk — 17:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There may be people who leave a religion and don't go to another one that is large enough for a list, or who become apatheists or whatever. One doesn't really "convert to agnosticism", for example, you just realize one day that you're an agnostic and you have been for a while. And since there's no List of converts to Invisible Pink Unicornism (pbuh), then I cannot support any move to fixate only on the conversion lists. I do support a rename of Former Latter-day Saints to List of ex-Latter-day Saints or List of ex-Mormons and from List of people who left Islam to List of ex-Muslims, for stylistic consistency. — coelacan talk — 23:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: This is crazy. We just went through an AFD for this article. There is NO negative connotation to a "List of people who left X". Would you say there's a negative connotation to Criticism of Islam as well? Lets delete that article as well. If you say "List of people who left X" has negative connotation, then List of Muslim converts has a positive connotation. Why should negative connotation lists not be allowed? If positive ones are allowed, then negative ones should also be allowed. Using your arguement, I'll say that List of Muslim converts should not exist because its entire purpose is to give a positive connotation to the religion at hand.--Matt57 19:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say "weak delete", but since i'm a inclusionist, ill remain neutral. --Striver 20:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Nominator, doesn't List of Muslim converts also 'serve as a vehicle for propaganda/advocacy', in your own words? --Matt57 20:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, nom is arguing that both "convert to abc" and "former abc" is redundant, nothing wrong with that argument. --Striver 22:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its not redundant. People from different faiths join a certain faith. People from one faith can join many faiths. This is not being redundant. If you have one list, you should have the other one as well. When you have Lists of people who CONVERTED to Islam, WHAT is wrong with having List of people who LEFT Islam? Can you tell me? If you're saying they're redudant, tell me why the first should not be deleted and the second kept. How are these lists are redundant? Do you see Ibn Warraq in "List of people who converted to Islam"? Where should he be included? List of Athiests? My point is: If CONVERSION is a serious enough issue that a list must be made for it, why is not APOSTASY? Can you or anyone suggesting a Delete tell me that? As USUAL this AFD is yet another of the millions of attempts on Wikipedia to repeatedly censor Criticism of Islam and keep it under the carpet. By the way, the nonimator didnt even know that Apostasy lists of other faiths exist before being pointed out that they did. --Matt57 23:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eeeh... you did write that to me, didn't you? Did you see what i "voted" ? --Striver 00:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My response is for anyone (including the nominator who you quoted) who thinks these lists are redundant. --Matt57 01:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it becomes extremely difficult to discuss with you if your interest is only in assuming bad faith: i think such accusations that other editors are attempting to "censor" material should be reserved for a medium other than wikipedia, 'Brave Steed'. you have not clarified my concerns above to a satisfactory degree. is pointing to the fact that there are 'lists of converts' the only justification you have for defending the lists in these noms? people don't bother with identification through negation, it's simply pointless. i don't see any encyclopaedic use for replicating names onto multiple lists when they provide no new information. ITAQALLAH 01:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep your links to Faith Freedom International to yourself. They're irrelevant in this discussion. You keep linking to their forum in every 5th post of yours, yet believe the website is not notable. On to this AFD: The list of ex-members of a faith is just ANOTHER way of representing information. It is NOT duplication of information. Like I said "List of people who converted to X", is one way of classifying information. Prove that these lists are redundant by showing me where these lists of names exist in another page together, classified in a similiar grouping way that brings them together. --Matt57 04:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i think your posts on FFI are relevant to your accusations of censorship, they are indicative of an inherent bad faith you assume of a certain class of editors. "You keep linking to their forum in every 5th post of yours".. a wild exaggeration.. "yet believe the website is not notable" and a non sequitur. yes, it is non-notable. so what? "Prove that these lists are redundant by" .. i don't believe that attempting to meet such requirements is necessary to maintain that there is little value in such lists. ITAQALLAH 06:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also please see Coricus's comments below which refute your arguments of redundancy for these lists. In summary, these are valuable research tools and in addition there is no other place on the internet which has these lists. --Matt57 04:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • week Keep Im sort of straggling between whether this is notable, but when in doubt... keep. KazakhPol 22:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean notable? The people in these lists ARE notable. What are you talking about? How can these lists not be "notable"? --Matt57 23:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is truly important that in maters of this sort we be truly neutral and treat all the similar groups exactly the same.
But there is a problem in the definition the article may be using. People who convert to another religion have obviously left their former one. People who become irreligious are less obvious. I think for such individual it would be necessary to have a source where they specifically say: I am no longer an X. (& I believe there are some religions which consider you in their membership none the less) . In particular, there is the problem with people originally of religion X, where someone considered an authority says: So and so is no longer a X. Unless so and so aggrees and says so, how can we judge the validity of this? We could have another category for persons ejected from whatever--not just a religion--but that would be a particularly poor idea for something spiritual. DGG 02:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thats where references come in to prove how they left the religion. Also its probably obvious that if they're strongly critical of the religion, they have left it. For those who dont say it clearly, they are included in the Secular category for example Wafa Sultan (she's given conflicting statements about her being a Muslim, although is strongly critical and explicitly secular in her own words). People who are ejected would be a small quantity in number, these are generally few. Also people who are ejected also usually have left the religion already on their own will so they can still be included here. There could be a separate mention in this article for people who were also 'ejected'.--Matt57 14:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here's a link to the previous AFD for this article - Deju Vu. In a better world, a nominator who nominates an article soon after it has already gone through its first nomination, would be warned for disrupting Wikipedia.--Matt57 04:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i already explained the distinction above. perhaps you missed it? ITAQALLAH 04:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you just waited a few minutes, you would see my reply above.--Matt57 04:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
you haven't answered why you think i am disrupting the wiki, i explained in my nom statement the distinction between this and the previous AfD. ITAQALLAH 06:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. While I recognise the possible repetition of information in these articles and agree with earlier comments that the title "List of people who left Islam" contains a subtle prejudice, I think the concept of these lists is useful. Consider someone doing research on, for example, Richard Dawkins book "The God Delusion". Such a person might wish to research people that became Atheists versus those that left Atheism for Agnosticism or even a full religion. Without a "list of ex-Athesits" such a researcher then has to carry out the research that has already gone into the production of this page and we're now discussing should be deleted. Ergo, pages of this type are in and of themselves useful. I think the title of this particular "Islam page" should be changed to move it in line with the other articles and it should be a strong keep -- as should its compatriots. Coricus 04:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After this nomination is over, I'm considering renaming the list List of people who left Islam to List of ex-Muslims to be more in line with other apostasy related lists. Even the nominator said above in his/her striked out comments that they would rather have that list renamed.--Matt57 04:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and rename. This article AfD is now being used to justify deleting all other similar purposed ex- articles. When people change their philosophical worldview and leave one particular religious belief then they don't always move straight into another but may contemplate for a while pending the establishment of their new identity. It may be an instantaneous conversion or a slow understanding of where they want to be next. Thus they may reside on one list and not be on another as a convert for many years, if at all as WP:LIVING applies and they have to have said in their own words what they are doing. The two mirror-lists (i.e. the ex- and the Converts to- ) allow us to capture what they have said on the exit and the arrival. Ttiotsw 05:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. `The concept is distinct enough to warrant inclusion in addition to the "converts from X" concept. Former Latter-day Saints, for instance, contains people who may or may not have converted to anything, yet the fact that they were once part of that religion and are no longer is notable and serves as a thread that connects such people, and thus should not be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Porlob (talk • contribs) 13:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
comment Thanks, Porlob, for a very good reason. 21:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Whoops. Forgot to sign. :) Porlob 13:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, According to reasons of user:Itaqallah above. --Mak82hyd 02:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep them all. The people listed are all notable, and the fact that they have left Islam/Atheism/whatever is notable too. -- Karl Meier 09:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Karl et al. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep possibly rename the Islam list to List of former muslims for consistency. There may also be some POV in the phrase List of people who left x. GabrielF 06:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I decided to be bold and moved the page to List of former Muslims. I chose former rather than ex for the sake of consistency with Category:Former Muslims GabrielF 06:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, thats a good decision. --Matt57 14:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all all these people are notable, and there is no reason to delete this. The only reason I can see for why this is nominated for deletition is because it shows that people actually do leave islam, and the fact that there are former muslims seems to bother muslims.--Sefringle 03:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Muslims are more vocal, but I think "ex" lists are inherently focussed on the negative and can annoy any group being named. When I created List of ex-atheists I did get an atheist who expressed annoyance. Several atheist sites that discuss atheists who convert to a theistic or deistic system go through efforts to say that the person is lying about ever being an atheist or when that fails they emphasize that the person in question had an "immature" or false atheism. Although in fairness I did come close to a point violation in creating it as most of the ex-lists struck me as religion bashing. (Back then they weren't so much about saying what a person later joined, the focus was almost solely on leaving a religion) Anyway in principle I think Former Latter-day Saints would also irritate LDSers, etc. Conversion lists I think are only irritating if you find the religion in question repellent. If you don't care then people converting or leaving it is likely disinteresting. Otherwise conversion lists are of interesting as conversions have effected entire nations. Leaving is only that significant when the person converts to something. (If Queen Christina of Sweden quit going to Lutheran services, but didn't go anywhere else, I doubt it would've been as significant)--T. Anthony 12:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Can you beleive that the List of former Muslims was taken out of Wikiproject:Islam's main page first by Itaqallah and then by Striver. I asked them to let the list remain on the project page or I would take it to Mediation/Dispute resolution and they said that was fine. That list has everything to do with Islam. They already had a list there List of Muslims but they could not tolerate to see the List of former Muslims there.--Matt57 04:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely strong keep - the included information is encyclopedic, it's obviously not non-notable, it isn't offensive to any tradition, as nearly all denominations have a list, and it's not duplication, as someone that wants to know "who left this religion" would have to scour several articles to find (left X for Y), and in fact might not find them (is there an article List of converts to Buddhism?). the only way I can fathom this to be unencyclopedic is through verifiability: and the solution is not to wipe out the articles to never exist again, it's to find sources, add fact tags, or remove certain submissions. Hope I don't come across too strong. Patstuarttalk|edits 01:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per everyone else. --Wizardman 15:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_people_who_left_Islam_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138018973"