Talk:Ahmadiyya in Algeria

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Multiple issues[edit]

  1. I have removed this for two reasons:
    • Routine news reporting of insignificant events is not encyclopedic. This is reason enough to keep the nonsense out of the article which is supposed to be about Ahamadiyya and not up to the minute Ahamadi illegal activities.
    • The sources have clearly been misrepresented and mistranslated to push a POV and this is simply not acceptable.
  2. This shows that the journalist doesn't know what he's talking about since every other newspaper[1][2] attributed (what he's falsely attributing to the minister) to an organisation based in Pakistan called "Khatm Ennouboua".

References

  1. ^ "CCMM". CCMM (in French). Retrieved December 5, 2016.
  2. ^ "Khatm Ennouboua : La secte "Qadianiya", oeuvre des services de renseignements étrangers". Slate Afrique (in French). May 28, 2013. Retrieved December 5, 2016.

M.Bitton (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

M.Bitton, thanks for doing that. I kept meaning to get around to cleaning this up but other things got in the way. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


@M.Bitton:

1) Both of of your reasons are incorrect for the following reasons:

  • That fact that details of arrests are being reported by multiple news orgs clearly means that it is not insignificant. That's obviously clear. Neither it is routine reporting, i.e. "on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities". You say that the article should be about Ahmadiyya, right? Yet you don't want the article to discuss the most significant things happening to them right at this moment? Should religious-based articles not discuss the persecution of those religious groups?
  • If you think that the sources are not conveying the correct information, why don't you correct the details rather than blank the entire page?

2)No you haven't read the source clearly. The source isn't denying that it's attributed to "Khatm Ennouboua", but merely that the government recognizes what the original source has said.--Peaceworld 18:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: That's less of a clean up, more of an indiscriminate blanking.--Peaceworld 18:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The issue I saw with the old version of the page (and why the page was originally brought to my attention from another user) was that it was going into too much detail with respect to the persecution on the Ahmadiyya. In other words, we don't need to know that 20 people were arrested on this day and 6 were arrested on that day. A section about the struggles could probably be added, but as found on the page previously it was just not the best way to do it. Primefac (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For a community of a 1000, an estimated number 20 or so is not so insignificant. While I agree that specific dates such as "Friday" "the 3rd of November" is unnecessarily specific, I do think that the year or months should be mentioned to give a clear and brief timeline of developments. A section about the struggles should off course be there, and I also agree it shouldn't take the shape of a news article. Note however, although articles such as 2016 Nice attack#Attack or November_2015_Paris_attacks#Attacks or 2015_San_Bernardino_attack#Events are comparably much more significant, the details here however are nowhere near as detailed.--Peaceworld 18:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles are OTHERSTUFF arguments, because they are specifically about one day/one event. This article is about a religion in a country. Saying something like "citizens have been arrested for XYZ" would be fine. Try to look at this less of an attack on the article as a whole, but a chance to work together to create a better page. Primefac (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that was just a note, not that I'm suggesting to keep that detailed - Just reminding that such 'minute by minute details' are not unheard of. You are right. Let's work together. Why don't we restore the original version and work our way downwards and see what is/isn't needed?--Peaceworld 19:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Peaceworld111: I understood the source very well, but that's beside the point. What's interesting is that you think that, and I quote: "the government recognizes what the original source has said", yet not only do you attribute it to the minister, you even added "falsely" as to make him look like an ignorant, or worse still, a liar. Would you be kind enough to explain why ? Are you the one who translated the sources ?
@Primefac: You're welcome. What bothers me most is the misrepresentation and the mistranslation of the sources. M.Bitton (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not denying that the minister did say that, but neither are the two sources contradicting each other. As I have said you are more than welcome to correct what you think is incorrectly represented. I added the word "falsely" much later, only because accusations of conspiracy against political establishment made by the KN orgs against Ahmadiyya are well known to be false per reliable sources.--Peaceworld 20:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Peaceworld111: You're contradicting yourself and you're adding WP:OR as you see fit, that's all I'll retain from your answer. You need to answer the other question because whomever is responsible for such misrepresentation and mistranslation of the sources needs to be established. Are you the one who translated the sources ? M.Bitton (talk) 20:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton: To say that the "minister did say that" and to say that the "government recognises the statement of the original source" is not a contradiction in meaning. You can say something, even it is not from yourself. I'm not adding OR as I'm seeing fit. You are just not familiar with the subject. If you'd like I can find a source for your convenience. You haven't responded to point (1).--Peaceworld 20:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revised version[edit]

@M.Bitton:@Primefac: I have made a number of changes, take a look and please don't go on a blanking rampage, it's unhelpful.--Peaceworld 22:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Peaceworld111: Consider this your last warning. If you misrepresent and mistranslate the sources again, you will be reported to the admins. M.Bitton (talk) 23:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton: I've just reverted and in your opinion have met your condition to report me to the admins. Do bring the admins. I think that'l be easier.--Peaceworld 06:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you, please be CIVIL. Wanton blanking and reverting helps no one. I highly suggest that a discussion should happen here to come to some sort of consensus on what to include. This will allow for dialogue instead of continually reverting each other. Primefac (talk) 12:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My recent revert was an exception - I'm not a fan of edit wars myself. By fulfilling the warning, I thought it'd save me some time if M.Bitton reported me to the admins. As for your edit, I suggest adding another sentence specifying the places where the arrests took place, if not any other detail. This isn't just day-to-day arrests but a single "event", so to speak, involving coordinated targets, culminating in a number of arrests and sentences (which the article doesn't yet discuss) against its members over a number of months.--Peaceworld 14:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Primefac (talk) 14:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: I cleaned up his mess (for which you thanked me) and even gave him the benefit of the doubt by asking him whether he's the one who translated the sources, thinking that maybe someone else misled him, only for him to turn around, revert my edit by calling it non-constructive and adding more mistranslation and misrepresentation of the sources.
How can one continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary ? Attributing such nonsense as "the demolition of an Ahmadiyya Muslim mosque and center under construction" to a source when the source clearly says something else and talking about arrests when the sources say "detained and released pending completion of the investigation" (the only arrest concerns an Ahmadi who assaulted someone) could only mean one of two things. a) The editor doesn't understand the languages he's translating through google or other means and is better off asking for help (which will be provided if he asks nicely). b) The editor understands the languages and is intentionally mistranslating the sources. That's why I asked him whether he's the one who translated the sources. M.Bitton (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes reaching a consensus means leaving the improper text for a short while. I will take a closer look at the sources and see if they really do support the claims made in the text. Primefac (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's very nice of you. Meanwhile, to alleviate your workload, I will ask the editor to provide quotations per WP:NONENG.
@Peaceworld111: Could you please provide a quotation of relevant portions of the original source to substantiate what you attribute to it: "the demolition of an Ahmadiyya Muslim mosque and center under construction". M.Bitton (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton:About asking nicely, that was part of my first comment, right at the top, requesting you to correct the information rather than blanking the pages. As for who has translated it, is irrelevant - my article revisions in front of you will not change because of this knowledge. As for your particular question, yes the demolition in discussion is of private properties rather than a religious centre - but it appeared to me then, that those behind the construction were intending to open up a religious centre instead. Here is the quote:

Tout a commencé à Larbaâ Beni Moussa, dans la wilaya de Blida, quand les gendarmes des brigades territoriales ont assisté les services de l’urbanisme dans l’opération de démolition de deux habitations érigées illicitement par deux individus sur un terrain domanial. Selon une source proche de l’enquête, les gendarmes avait alors constaté la présence de six personnes ayant loué une partie de l’une des habitations concernées par cette opération de démolition auprès de son pseudopropriétaire. Convoqués, et après leur examen de situation et l’intensification des investigations et des recherches, il a été révélé que ces personnes font partie de la secte religieuse El-Ahmadiya. Les mis en cause avaient envisagé d’ouvrir un centre régional regroupant les adeptes de ladite phalange religieuse, dont le nombre a atteint plus de 1 000 adhérents à travers le territoire national.

--Peaceworld 19:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Peaceworld111: I didn't ask you what you thought then and the fact that you don't understand French is is no longer relevant, I asked you specifically to provide a quotation for some of the POV you've been pushing and you failed miserably.
@Primefac: Please have a look at his answer and tell me what you think. M.Bitton (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to summarize the events of that quote - some people erected a building illegally, the gov't went to put a stop to it and it turns out the people living there happened to be Ahmadiyya. Using that as verification for "demolition of an Ahmadiyya Muslim mosque and center under construction" is not really reporting the facts (in fact, is twisting them a bit). Sure, the people there wanted to build something, but they were doing it illegally and so it really has nothing to do with their religion (or this "crackdown"). Primefac (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton: I hadn't been "pushing" for this quote at all - You hadn't mentioned it earlier, until now. @Primefac: Let's also not forget that the national ministry had equivocally denied the construction of an Ahmadi mosque - it wasn't without reason that I had mistakenly interpreted the quote that I did.--Peaceworld 21:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: It's more than simple fact twisting, it's source misrepresentation plain and simple with as the rest of the POV he's been pushing to give this article a semblance of notability and hide the Ahmadi illegal activities I mentioned right at the start, no attempt whatsoever to write from a neutral point of view. M.Bitton (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes-the illegal activities of essentially practising a faith other than that accepted by the Algerian government and clergy.1 2 3. CNN appears to be the main newsgroup outside of Algeria interested in these events (and the most neutral one - untainted by nationalism)--Peaceworld 21:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac:This is becoming quite laughable. Apparently, the sources he's been misrepresenting and mistranslating to push his POV are tainted by nationalism and hence, all the Ahmadi illegal activities they report should be ignored. Please let me know how you want to proceed. M.Bitton (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
M.Bitton, to be honest it's starting to sound like you have an agenda. I have zero beef with this article (though I would like to see it cleaned to a suitable standard), so I'll do my best to read through all the sources to make sure that everything is accurately represented. If I see something that doesn't jive, I'll post it here for confirmation and/or discussion on what should be done about. Primefac (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac:I'm not sure what to make of your agenda comment and I'd really appreciate it if you could elaborate a bit more. M.Bitton (talk) 15:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I might have overstepped; you just seem very intent on ensuring none of the content is included. Maybe I'm misinterpreting the situation, and if so I apologize. Primefac (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac:Thank you for apologising. You can rest assured that my intent has never been other than to enforce the respect of WP core content policies. You'll notice that right from the start, I made it clear that the mistranslation and misrepresentation of the sources is not acceptable (something, I'm sure you agree with) and my position hasn't changed since. M.Bitton (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: I was just wondering whether you've had a chance to read through the sources. M.Bitton (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have now. With the exception of a few numbers (1970 as the founding and 2000 as "growth in population") the sources all verify the facts stated.
In reading back over the discussions above, I think there are two main issues here. On the one hand, I don't think anyone can deny that the Ahmadiyya have been persecuted in Algeria for being who they are. On the other hand, the references used are incredibly polarized. Thus, anyone going to verify the references will find propaganda as well as facts. Said facts, however, are true, so extra care is required to ensure they are the only things put on the page. The only section I have any real concerns about (re: potential propaganda) is the "In December 2016..." sentence; is it worth including? The usage of "infiltrate" and "battle" makes me think no (or, at the very least, it needs refactoring). Primefac (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've removed that paragraph for not being neutral. Primefac (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: Thank you for taking the time to go through them. Before I raise a couple of small issues and seeing as a new source has been introduced, I just wanted to make sure of something. Is the whole statement "Ahmadiyya is an Islamic community in Algeria under the leadership of the caliph in London" attributable to that source or only part of it ? The reason I ask is because every other source describes Ahmadiyya in Algeria as a religious sect with no mention of either community, Islamic, caliph or London (see how I described it here). M.Bitton (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, you may have caught me being too clever for my own good. That reference is verifying that the caliph is in London. I suppose it constitutes a small amount of OR, but saying that they weren't under the leadership of the caliph would be like saying Catholics without a formal church aren't under the leadership of the Pope. However, I suppose it doesn't specifically need to be stated that they are under the leadership of the caliph in London. As for the origin of the statement - it seems to be the opening sentence of just about every page listed in the {{Ahmadiyya by country}} sidebar. Seems like more of a copy/paste job than any sort of malicious/ill intent. Primefac (talk) 00:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: As a matter of fact, we don't know anything about them, that's why I described them as per the sources and left it at that. Is there any reason why we shouldn't do that ? M.Bitton (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Primefac (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. You'll notice that I also removed the mention of the "growth" in 2000 since it's attributed to a market seller. M.Bitton (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: I suggest we replace:

"Beginning in June 2016, a nationwide crackdown covering several provinces led to the arrest of dozens of Algerian Ahmadi Muslims. The arrests were carried out by the national police department Gendarmerie Nationale[2] and the Algerian security services,...

with

In 2016, several Ahmadi sect members have been detained and accused of various offences

For two reasons:

  • It's attributable to the sources (detention is different from arrest and we don't know whether they are Algerians or foreigners).
  • It's neutral.

What do you think ? M.Bitton (talk) 00:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Primefac (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac:  Done. I also removed the map which is OR. Please have a look and tell me what you think. M.Bitton (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I got rid of "several" since if the numbers are correct it's something like 20-30 people (which is more than several). A different word might work, but I can't think of anything suitable at the moment. Primefac (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: That's fine, I can't think of a suitable one either. Thank you for the time and effort taken to review the article. M.Bitton (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ministry of Religious Affairs, 2013[edit]

@M.Bitton: what was "misrepresented" in that sentence exactly? please elaborate. Sirius86 22:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ahmadiyya_in_Algeria&oldid=1195527191"