Talk:Religious segregation - Knowledge (XXG)

2024:

etc) and not about two words. An example will help e.g. "red", "ball" and not "red ball". Please forgive me my English are not perfect, but what I meant as "simple" in my previous post was that this phrase does not need a separate entry in the dictionary, since with just the definitions of the two words "religious" and "segregation" you can understand the meaning. In other words I would be surprised if you find a dictionary definition of a "red ball" or "religious segregation". Now, I have seen papers in journals that explicitly use this term "religious segregation" and I can spent some time to gather them and present them. Finally, I fail to see how people can disagree with the following statement:

2846:

segregation, but a significant number of discriminations over time does. And please note, segregation can be achieved with two ways: direct and indirect. Direct = placing a wall between communities or by force prohibiting someone or a group to live or access an area based on their beliefs. Indirect = by not permitting someone to find a job, or reduced salary, or wealth/class/political restrictions, or prohibit education etc etc based on your beliefs. But, to be perfectly honest with you I wouldn't like to use these sources either, not because they are not reliable enough, but I would prefer more academic sources, rather than say Amnesty International or US government etc etc

585:"The Government required noncitizens to carry iqamas, or legal resident identity cards, which contained a religious designation for "Muslim" or "non-Muslim." There were reports that individual mutawwa'in pressured sponsors and employers not to renew iqamas of non-Muslims they had sponsored for employment if it was discovered or suspected that those individuals had either led, sponsored, or participated in private non-Muslim worship services. Additionally, there were reports that mutawwa'in pressured employers and sponsors to reach verbal agreements with non-Muslim employees, who must promise that they will not participate in private or public non-Muslim worship services." 2342:

religion" (as above). And moreover, you and others who fight this inclusion admit that this segregation based on religion does happen -- but repeatedly, opponents of inclusion have put up non-relevant arguments such as that it is done to save lives, it is just like border security (or other form of discrimination X or Y) or that the excluded people do not have a "good reason" to be there. The current leg on which the exclusion argument stands is the assertion that no non-opinion sources have been presented that explicitly say "Non-Muslim exclusion from is " (though

2793:, about human rights in Iran. The sentence it cites is: "There have been reports of imprisonment, harassment, intimidation, and discrimination based on religious beliefs" - extremely generalised OR-ish statement, conveniently fails to acknowledge that the source is talking about Iran, giving the impression that the discussion is about the "Muslim world" in general. And how is this specifically pertinent to the issue of religious segregation as opposed to religious discrimination? 2706:

other nothing then I would choose the hand with the sources. Finally, I must apologized but placing policies in my face all the time without open-minded discussing the issue at hand makes me and others to think the existence of a hidden agenda. Now if you do have a problem with one or two sources used then we can remove them, meaning the text stays (but.. we edit it as well). If you are unable to provide sources to support the contrary and do not present

3801:. When citing attributions, the only valid cite is that where the attributed statement is made. If an article were to say "The National Enquirer said that aliens invented the transistor", the proper cite would be to a National Enquirer article where it says that aliens invented the transistor. Despite the fact that the NE is by an large an arguably unreliable source, this not only a valid cite, but the best cite for the content's assertion. - 745:"The Government did not officially permit non-Muslim clergy to enter the country for the purpose of conducting religious services, although some came under other auspices. Such restrictions made it very difficult for most non-Muslims to maintain contact with clergymen and attend services. Catholics and Orthodox Christians, who require a priest on a regular basis to receive the sacraments required by their faith, particularly were affected." 2096:

defined as: "to separate or set apart from others or from the main body or group; isolate". The word "religious" is the adjectival form of "religion", which I assume needs no definition (but for the record is defined as "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience"). Now, an adjective modifies a noun, so if we put the definitions together, it means "to separate or set apart from others

1617:, religious segregation in Muslim countries seems to be typical. Therefore, it needs to be in the article. Second, I agree with the administrators that the related paragraph(s) with the supported references and the way it is written is very bad. So... I think (not that it matters.. but anyway) that it needs a very careful major rewrite supported by international reports + books from notable scholars. That is all... Enjoy Life! 3204:...And Israel has Jewish-only settlements in the West-Bank. And France will throw out Muslim girls from the school who dare to follow their religion (by covering their hair). You haven't found a reliable source calling this "religious segregation", nor have I found one calling accusing Israel and France of such. So until then, let's both keep such content out of the article. Bless sins (talk) 01:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 163: 173: 142: 4485: 269: 3167:

that he be given the right to attend certain sensitive papal ceremonies and rituals. There are obviously much more heated and relevant issues with things such as the Dome of the Rock and the Temple Mount or Mosques/Churches in Serbia/Kosovo that would be much better examples than saying that only Muslims can visit the holiest Muslim site. IMO the section should be deleted and started over. -

684:"There was a further deterioration of the extremely poor status of respect for religious freedom during the reporting period, most notably for Baha'is and Sufi Muslims. The country's religious minorities include Sunni and Sufi Muslims, Baha'is, Zoroastrians, Jews, and Christians. There were reports of imprisonment, harassment, intimidation, and discrimination based on religious beliefs." 74: 53: 2222:"If you call poor sourcing an "excuse" to delete material": Emmm... I saw the 7 sources and they do not seem poor to me... maybe they are not the best or extra sources needed but they are not poor. Do you have sources supporting the contrary? If not then the section about Muslim segregation (I think) should stay. Also, we need to re-write it in an non-provocative way i.e. 22: 4497: 2937:) but with further explanations to avoid misunderstandings, a history/origins section, and how it manifests today in different parts of the world i.e. Europe, Middle East, India, etc etc I know this is a sensitive subject, but if we manage to create a to-do list OR guideline on how this article could evolve it would be great. 3245:! In particular, it was considered a positive factor till the end of 19th century, since it was credited for the flourishing cities of the East in the Middle Ages. I have seen no sources that claim it is not a feature anymore (that means even a book from 1959 addresses existing issues of today)! Both editors, 3091:

I'm not stopping you from producing a high quality section at all. But please don't suggest that we should keep this unencyclopedic mess of a section - which violates core content policy throughout as is meticulously documented above - while we wait for someone to find the sources for some new content.

4001:

isn't a good article, second of all ... it doesn't make any sense unless you twist the definition of segregation to mean anything other than a homogeneous community with a Muslim, Catholic, Sikh, Hindu, Black, Asian, European and disabled person on every block. You can't call it segregation if no one

3900:

By "these" I assume you mean the ones bieng discussed in this section. One of them seems to be a biased sourced and the other, well, is an open wiki that anyone can edit. Secondly, please note, both the sources were removed and replaced. So what's the dispute about? (Jossi, if you're referring to the

3464:

is never an acceptable solution to a source problem or individual snippets of content. Bless Sins and Itaqallah will remove entire sections over one or two sources they don't like. Why does that make sense? How does it fall under WP guidelines? It doesn't, but it's very efficient at keeping Knowledge

3090:

Re: discrimination/segregation, A.Cython, you are simply applying your own personal interpretation which others may not agree with. This is in essence original research.. Please find sources with something more clear cut, so that it's not you or I who is trying to determine what is/isn't segregation.

2785:

is about discrimination in Iran. It is cited to this sentence: "Many Muslim countries consign non-Muslim monotheists to the status of dhimmis, both officially and by custom." The document makes no generalised assertion of "many Muslim countries", and no mention of "dhimmis" or "segregation." We see a

2778:

is about religious freedoms of non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia, less so about 'religious segregation.' It certainly is not appropriate for the sentence cited: "Religious segregation occurs throughout the Muslim world, where nations such as Saudi Arabia deny non-Muslims some of the civil rights and voting

2717:

This chapter deals with origins, structure and evolution or regression of the various types of Islamic cities widely scattered in space and time. One is confronted with the anomaly of a city-minded faith that nevertheless produces cities markedly deficient in organized municipal life. This deficiency

2345:

would seem to challenge that assertion effectively). But when we have an unambiguous definition of the term, as we now do, trying to place such a pedantically explicit barrier is merely a filibuster. The example fits the definition of the term -- therefore, it is applicable for the article -- and, to

617:

That's just silly. A law which prohibits non-Muslims the same religious freedom as Muslims is inherently discriminatory and racist. That's the whole point. Any implementation of discriminatory laws which results in the expulsion of people based on religion is per definition religious segregation. I'm

360:

I think the section is balanced as it makes the very point you do in the paragraph below. I don't particularly want to defend "apartheid" alligations but this is a noteable group in a religious conflict (ie arab-israeli conflict). Your point of view that this is not true is noted as it should be. But

3512:

is pretty clear: removing content is bad practice, improving content is good practice. As for sources, that's a novel criteria for what makes a source "sound". The sources are sound because they are reliable and verifiable and back up the content they are referenced from. If you'd like to invent new

3192:

Look, people! There is a huge difference between a badly written text from a plainly wrong text! Before I start posting here I knew very little about the subject, but the more I read from journals/books and from other scholars it is a plain fact that this articles needs to be re-written from scratch

3166:

country in which the status of "Dhimmi" retains legal applications. The reader is left to assume that this is characteristic of the entire "Muslim world." Thirdly, Mecca being left as a place for Muslims only doesn't seem like a fair example, since, as said above, it would be like a Muslim demanding

2990:

That's an unreasonable expectation. The sources hould address segregation but they need not use the term (and one of our sources actually says "apartheid" which is an even stronger, loaded term for a form of segregation). We need neither obtain a definition because the words alreary give them to us:

2519:

an attack to Muslims anything related... In fact Europe was religiously segregated for centuries during the Middle Ages, while the Muslim world was by far more tolerant to different religions... but things changed and will change etc etc... Enjoy Life! PS: Are there any sources that claim that there

1440:

Can you please contribute to the discussion in a manner that doesn't include attacking other contributors? Also, let's not get sidetracked into unproductive and speculative arguments about agendas. As I said in my comments in March, find some reliable sources specifically connecting the issue to the

778:

enter into the question. They could Christians, Buddhist or any other thing - they'd still be barred from entering. What SA is practicing is religious segregation at its borders, and by its racist policies whereby life for religious minorities becomes almost impossible, religious segregation inside.

777:

Comparing individual Catholic or Orthodox Christians with emissaries from terror organizations reveals a complete lack of understanding. Members from Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaida, etc. and other official terror organizations are not barred from entering the USA based on their religion. It doesn't even

3469:

Wholesale section removal is unorthodox practice. Content improvement -- including finding better sources -- is the preferred action. Instead of working to improve the content, these two work to remove content they don't want to see in WP under any rationale that can pass the barest of sniff tests.

2110:

Of course, your question was rhetorical, an inroad perhaps to argue that the definition of the phrase is open to interpretation such that it can be selectively not applied based on excuses, justifications or personal interest -- as you have repeatedly tried to do here and elsewhere. So answering it

1993:. Yet the failure for users to provide even a dictionary defintion just goes to show that how important it is for us to not "use the definition of the word" to decide what is "religious segregation" and what is not. Religious segregation exists wherever reliable sources say it exists, and not where 1770:

Directly related does not mean specificly states. Something can easily be directly related to the topic without specificly stating it is related to the topic. Therefore information on examples of discrimination against non-muslims is directly related to this topic, even if it doesn't specificly say

1718:

utter nonsense. It never should have been removed, and only whitewashing can be blamed for such strict and unrealistic and incorrect interpritations of policy. No policy, as far as I am aware, states that the sources must specificly state that it is "religious segregation" for it to be relevant and

1083:

going on here. The section in question is currently a mishmash of different sources saying different things (ironically, none of which actually assert religious segregation). The section as it stands is currently a tendentious generalised tract about 'non-Muslims in the Muslim world' which consists

847:

BS doesn't address the Amnesty International report included in the massive slab of referenced text he just removed. I am going to revert this vandalism until BS can learn not whitewash everything he doesn't like, just because one reference in the section doesn't mention the exact phrase "religious

767:

According to the above paragraph, "Catholics and Orthodox Christians" already exist in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government is only prohibiting the entry of a few Christians who declare that they are coming to Saudi Arabia to violate its laws (public non-Muslim worship is prohibited in Saudi Arabia).

607:

Yes, "segregation" refers to physical separation. Secondly what is the discrimination here? If non-Muslims break Saudi laws (which prohibit non-Muslim worship) then they are told to leave the country. The U.S. or any other country would also deport criminals. Whether the Saudi laws are fair or not,

3765:

just the caption. There's reasonable limits to AGF. You've had enough WP experience to know that's not the proper action. If your goal is just to clean up refs, the proper method would be to remove the refs, or mark the content as dubious, or remove the caption. But for some reason, you remove the

2966:

Most of the issues discussed by the sources used in the disputed section are about discrimination i.e. voting rights, harrassment, persecution. Thus it is - generally speaking - irrelevant to the specific topic of segregation, and employing ones own interpetations may constitute original research.

2705:

Now for the negative proof, I am not using it to support my arguments on the contrary, the person(s) who remove the text by claiming that it is not true, do not present not even a single reliable source to support their claims. So if you have one one hand reliable sources and we do have and on the

2341:

which has also incurred this contention -- have shown the crucial matter: that persons are allowed or denied entry into Mecca and Medina based on the their religion. As I have shown, this is precisely the definition of "religious segregation"; to wit, "to separate or set apart from others based on

2095:

In my system of counting, "religious segregation" is not one word, but two. That would make it a phrase, not a word. So to define the phrase, barring idioms, we take the definitions of each word and apply them to each other. The word "segregation" is the noun form of the verb "segregate", which is

2023:

Well, let's put the facts on the table, shall we? If there is no "religious segregation" on the dictionary then what is the point that this (whole) article to be in WP in the first place. Second the dictionary (as far as I know) is about single words (exemption is the phrasal words i.e. "stand by"

1874:

No. Israel builds Israeli settlements, which are open to all Israelies (Jew, Christian, Muslim, or other). Only Palestinians (Jew, Christian, Muslim, or other) are not allowed. Anyway, you are repeating the old, well what about this, arguement. You want to add a metion about the Sistine Chapel, do

1465:

I take it that Yahel thinks his argument is in the refs he provides. And while I think not all of his additions are topical to religious segregation (some are more discrimination and persecution) some are: barring people from entering/living in a country based on religion for instance. I don't see

1281:

It seems really odd that there is no historical perspective to this article. A one sentence intro and BAM!! suddenly you're in the midst of modern examples. It's jarring, at a minimum, and seems rather POV in the selection of examples. Mention should also be made of self-segregation, since not all

1031:

Not one of your sources, Prester John, makes any comment about "religious segregation" - the topic of the article. Sure there is religious discrimination, but not religious segregation. If you disagree provide direct quotes from your sources to show that they indeed allege "religious segregation".

896:

1: the act or process of segregating : the state of being segregated2 a: the separation or isolation of a race, class, or ethnic group by enforced or voluntary residence in a restricted area, by barriers to social intercourse, by separate educational facilities, or by other discriminatory means b:

814:

Yet none of these sources (as far as I have read) accuses Saudi Arabia or Iran of segregating people by religion. Nowhere it is stated that Muslims and non-Muslims travel on different roads, or live in different settlements. If the allegation of "religious segregations" is not clear, I will remove

3376:

This is about the section within the article and have put this here since it will get lost in the above talk/comments. Reason for its removal before was that it was put there from what an editor has said in the edit summary by a member who is blocked for a number of reasons including sock puppets

3320:

Independently, though how you will answer the above question I still fail to see how the cases of discriminations based on religious reasons are not linked with segregation, especially when there are no sources to challenge the fact there is no religious segregation in the Muslim world and at the

3196:(1)The definition has been disputed... I find hard to understand how this can be disputed? If there is no definition, then why there is a WP article about it... should this be an original research? If it means what it means by the union of the words "religious" + "segregation" then we can move on! 2868:

In polytheism it is unlikely to generate religious conflicts because everyone believe in the existence of many Gods. So one believe in his/her Gods accepting (but necessary believing) the existence of the Gods of some other culture. There is no surprise that in antiquity there any religious wars.

3796:

Are you saying that the Christianity Today article did not use the term "religious apartheid" or that it did not use the term to describe separation based on religion? Do I need to have an additional source that says "Christianity Today used the term 'religious apartheid' to describe a situation

3345:

A.Cython, I said that the sources used in the article do not state religious segregation. You misrepresent my position when you claim I say there are no sources in existence stating religious segregation. I said provide some reliable sources and we can work from there, but it's not an excuse for

3038:

It is uncivil here as well, as is baselessly bringing people's religion into the discussion. I think I've shown quite conclusively above that virtually every passage in the section violates core content policy - please feel free to address the concerns I raised. I am certainly not against a well

2818:

Lastly for the quoted source above - I think you can see that "various types of Islamic cities widely scattered in space and time" is extremely vague, unspecific, and the exact scope is undetermined - especially in light of the desegregation mentioned later. This does not justify the content you

1535:

Well no, the law is not the law. Sometimes laws are unlawful. And yes you can criticize the French law and even the (non-identical) German laws all day long. Even on WP. And if some anti-Muslim bigot came along and told you that Muslima wearing a head scarf are criminals, I would say the same to

4028:

I don't religious discrimination is necessarily the same thing as religious segregation. Religious segregation is to separate - in space - people by religion. Discriminating against people based on religion (e.g. by giving them a lower salary) is not segregation. If it was, then the US would be

2852:

About the book I mentioned above... still I haven't managed to get it, but it does not mean it is irrelevant with the topic. It mentions that during the evolution of the Muslim cities religious segregation became an important factor in the Muslim life. As I said once I have the book I will post

2803:

It gets worse. The next passage is thus: "Saudi Arabia in particular is notorious for very stringent religious laws banning the practice of non-Muslim religions, even prescribing imprisonment and the death penalty for attempting to convert Muslims to other religions." - The source for which is:

3797:

where people are separated based on religion" ? Do I need yet a third source that says "source B says 'Christianity Today used the term "religious apartheid" to describe a situation where people are separated based on religion'"? No, of course not, because the best source for that assertion is

2845:

The first issue that I noticed, is that you make a black&white distinction between discrimination and segregation... I disagree! It is not a black&white distinction. You cannot segregate a mixed population with discriminating first! Sure one or two cases of discrimination does not mean

2362:

Filibustering would imply delaying the inevitable. The content is in fundamental violation of core content policies, and on that basis it should be nowhere near mainspace. The sources used (the reliable ones, that is) simply do not say what you want them to. Many of them speak in very specific

1064:

No definition of "religious segregation" was provided. A definition for "segregation" was provided, but as you know this article is about "religious segregation" not simply "segregation". None of your sources say "religious segregation". If any do, please quote them - I have asked you to do so

3331:(6)Finally, I will not get bothered with this article anymore, it is not that the subject is not interesting but rather I am to busy in real life to face sensitive people... but once I encounter other sources I will simply post them for helping the future editors make their edits. Enjoy Life! 3134:

To str1977: "That's an unreasonable expectation ." Str1977, if a source is talking about religious segregation then it will mention it by name. If it doesn't, and there is truly religious segregation, then another source will say that. If no source on planet earth calls an action as "relgious

3075:

showed that violated anything. The text does reflects certain facts, provided by the sources. To a certain degree there is a religious segregation in the Muslim world, you have to accept it. The text only needs to be re-written in a more neutral way with the appropriate sources. So instead of

3784:: It's not a fringe outlet, but a published magazine catering to a particular demographic. That doesn't make it unreliable. Furthermore, the use of the citation was to show a published source that uses the term "religious apartheid" and to what it applies it. The statement it backed up was: 2439:

Your justification for censorship just gets more and more rediculous. First you claim no scholar makes the arguement, now you say nobody does. Obviously people do. There are reliable sources which are presented which make the arguement. Stop repeating yourself to justify your revert warring

3967:

2. The section on India has nothing to do with "religious segregation" as it does not involve the seperation or segregation of one religion from another. Rather, it is on the seperation of different groups of people as prescribed by religious principles. As such it is more analogous to the

1377:

Knowledge (XXG) is not a vote. Your friends agreeing with you does not make a consensus. And when editing constantly shows pushing the same POV, even when incorrect, as your editing does, that editor has an agenda. Its not a personal attack; it is a description of your editing behaviour.

935:

Just because the definition of "segregation" does include religion does not mean there is no such thing as "religious segregation". Segregation includes the concect of "seperation" and all of the sources that you claim is OR contains information about seperation in Iran and Saudi Arabia.

2158:"So answering it is another fruitless exercise." There was an argument here, so it was needed. And how exactly your definition is significantly different from the one I have provided? Or even how the one I have provided is based on "based on excuses, justifications or personal interest"? 3377:

since then I've noticed it being reverted a number of times. I'm not saying that it should or shouldn't be there but the reverting isn't helping if any more reverting happens I will request that the article to be locked from editing until such time a consenus is made on this issue.

2546:- which it does in this case. It certainly isn't too much to ask that content adheres to these aforementioned policies. But the present state is that we don't have a single reliable source asserting "religious segregation" - the criteria for determining reliability can be seen 3157:

This section is a joke for several reasons. First of all, the historical scale is skewed and shows BLATANT POV-pushing. It even goes into the history of Mecca back to the 7th century and the time of Muhammad (whereas ALL OTHER things covered in this article are referring to a

3033:

Regardless of what one might think about the issue, deleting an entire section is in no way appropriate. Notwithstanding that "censorship" usually is quite an uncivil term, the deletion of an entire section concerned with one's own religion certainly suggests that conclusion.

2577:

talk about religious segregation, in the Muslim world! just read them... and there is no need to bring WP policies to discard a whole section due to a single not reliable source. Second, the negative proof only proves my point, that is: there are reliable sources that state

281: 2861:

The WP article should be about "Religious Segregation" and not "Religious Segregation Today", this also allows me to make another point: The article needs some historical background and not isolated examples here and there. For example here are some points that need to be

3941:

In her book, The Saudis, Sandra Mackey describes her experience at Mecca. She does not make any large sweeping claims of "segregation" on the basis of religion. She talks of a "dividing line", but explains that she if talking about religion being an "entire way of life".

3193:(and that includes the Muslim world)! And it is very difficult to add my personal interpretation when the sources that i have provided very clearly state the existence of religious segregation in the Muslim world! Here I will summarize the key arguments of this section: 2819:

insist on reinserting, as I have conclusively shown above. In fact, there have been major problems with almost all of the sentences. With all due respect, to claim that you see no OR or SYN problems suggests you did not scratch beyond the surface, as suspect as it was.

2643:

Negative proof means you can't use arguments like "Are there any sources that claim that there is no religious segregation in the Muslim world?" - because they are fallacious. "Religious segregation" is a notion that must be positively proven, it is not assumed until

3284:, said that I am applying my "own personal interpretation which others may not agree with"... well I do not care what others think, all I care is learn about the subject... at least I provide reliable sources that bluntly support my claims, where are your sources? 2026:"Religious segregation is the practice of restricting people to certain circumscribed areas of residence or to separate institutions (e.g., schools, churches) and facilities (parks, playgrounds, restaurants, restrooms) on the basis of religion or alleged religion." 496:

WP:NOR, and WP:V are very clear that sources must be provided for all content. If these sources are not provided content may be removed. If there is any misunderstanding of WP:NOR and WP:V, I'd be happy to help you out. But please realize that you *must* provide

1520:

Well the law is the law. On wikipedia, I don't question French and German laws that strip women of the Islamic scarf, so I don't really want others questioning the laws banning Christian prayer. Which sources mention "religious segregation"? Can you provide the

1830:

Segregation is, by definition, a type of discrimination where one thing is excluded from another. Just like in the past blacks were segregated from white areas in many areas, non-muslims are segregated from the city of Mecca, where muslims only are allowed.

1230:

Ok, I now feel it is prudent to show other users of your editing patterns particularly concerning removal of sourced content in Hindu articles. There must be an underlying prejudice or personal opinion underlying your zeal in keeping lots of information out.

3257:

Frank J. Costa and Allen G. Noble, "Planning Arabic Towns", Geographical Review, Vol. 76, No. 2, Thematic Issue: Asian Urbanization (Apr., 1986), pp. 160-172, which describes the urban development of the Arabic world in the period 1975-1980 and notes the

3392:

Hi Bidgee. The last two people to revert were Itaqallah and Yahel Guhan. Itaqallah is actively engaged in discussion on the talk page. Yahel Guhan reverted without discussing on the talk page. It is clear who is the drive-by reverter, abusing the edit

3558:

talks not about removing some information, but about leaving an article totally empty. As far as I see, no one has proposed that. Thus, WP:BLANK is irrelevant here. If the article does run out of content in the near future, then, yes I'll ask for its

1557:

place where "religious segregation" is mentioned, I'll assume that they don't mention it at all. The last two users who made this argument (the blocked Preseter John, and recently Yahel Guhan) both failed to provide such quotes. Maybe you can do

1493:

None of the sources talk about "religious segregation". How can a source mention something, without even referring to it? Some users are interpreting different facts of life as "religious segregation", thus violating OR. Oh, btw, what brings you

876:

The Saudi Arabia and Iran sections go into vast amounts of detail describing how these countries seperate people on the basis of religion. The BS line of thought that limits it to "physical segregation" defies its definition and moronic to boot.

3438:

Canadian Monkey and Yahel Guhan seem to be reverting with generic statements like 'no consensus' (as if the section ever enjoyed consensus in the first place!) or 'rv censorship' without attempting to address the grave flaws of the text itself.

3615:

Ah, I see. So if a member of an anti-discrimination or cultural group expresses their opinion in an editorial, it's a bad source, but if they express their opinion to a reporter who writes a news story about that opinion, it's perfectly OK. -

3407:

Yes I did see that but he best thing to do next time is to revert (don't edit war though) and add a note on their talk page pointing to the discussion, If they fail to talk and revert then it could be taken to AN/I for an Admin to look at it.

2913: 950:" No the definition of segregation that you provided does NOT include religion. Secondly, even if you do succeed in providing such a definition you will have proved nothing. Using two different sources to advance a position is a violation of 2045:' That is exactly what I'm looking for. I'm looking for one (or possibly two) sources that define this term. I completely understand your argument as to why this isn't in the dictionary (and I've said that I wasn't just looking for one per 2656:. Lastly, can you tell us what context Nabia Abbott is talking in? It doesn't look like she's actually talking about Mecca. I will assume you merely overlooked the discussion of Islam's "reorganisation and desegregation" on the next page. 3058:

I do not agree with your logic that the sources are only for discrimination rather than segregation. With your logic, there was no genocide in WWII since the Germans only killing individual Jews. Besides, at the sources that I presented

3120:" So, if we ever include that, we must make note that the segregation happened decades ago, and is not talking about today. The current section that keeps on getting included is not talking about historical segregation, but current one. 3853:

But that's only true when the source is reliable. Unreliable sources have no place in wikipedia (except maybe on thier own pages), don't you agree? BTW, the sources you restored are not at all about segregation, let alone a religious

3253:

fail to support their claims/arguments with reliable sources and use WP policies to exclude material from the article. Here is another source found that explicitly state that there is still religious segregation in the Muslim world:

2970:

Secondly, any sources that are to be used should specifically discuss segregation by name. What isn't appropriate is for us to obtain a 'definition' and then search for sources to apply it to - this is specifically highlighted in

2800:. One can see the narrative being weaved here (such as by the "in fact" caveat, which is unencyclopedic and tendentious language) linking isolated issues, chopping and changing between sources, and presenting them as systemic issues. 2769:"the person(s) who remove the text by claiming that it is not true, do not present not even a single reliable source to support their claims" - That is untrue, A.Cython - I never made any statement about whether it was "true" or not. 2917: 2909: 3658:

um, im sorry but in which parts of london do these religiously segregated areas exist? there arent any religiously segregated parts in london! people can pray when/how/to whom they like! and anyone else can be right there !

2647:

The sources used in the article are either a) unreliable, or b) do not state religious segregation. Furthermore, as has been said numerous times, they generalise specific incidences mentioned by the sources - in violation of

1951:

the practice of restricting people to certain circumscribed areas of residence or to separate institutions (e.g., schools, churches) and facilities (parks, playgrounds, restaurants, restrooms) on the basis of race or alleged

3002:

I wouldn't say it's an unreasonable expectation at all - it's well grounded in policy. Any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be properly cited and attributed to a reliable, published source - as stated in

3813:"That doesn't make it unreliable." That doesn't make it reliable either. Not all published sources are reliable. As per WP:V the burden of evidence (to provide a reliable source, and demonstrate its reliability) lies with 3209:

France will throw anyone either Christian, Muslim, or other who carry religious items out of a school! It is not France but the Muslim girls who self-segregate! France is a secular state, for everyone (including Muslims)!

1572:

Stop this nonsense. No source has to "specificly" say the words "religious segregation" for something to be relevant. That is just attemped censorship. The sources make it obvious that they are talking about segregation.

2905: 2975:. As long as we accept that the section as it stands is inappropriate for an encyclopedia, then we can work towards developing high quality content which is specific and appropriate to the historical context. Regards, 1398:" friends"? "pushing the same POV"? "that editor has an agenda"? You have yet to present any argument that the above is not original research, as two other users besides me agree it was. Please respond to my arguments 2807:- which doesn't even mention non-Muslims, let alone attempted conversion to other religions. The sentence is completely unverified and OR, A.Cython. And, as before, this has nothing to do with religious segregation. 1851:

Then in your opinion, religious segregation happens when Israel builds Jewish settlements (which separate the Jews from the Muslim and Christian Arabs). It'd also happen when non-Catholics are not allowed in the

3483:

I don't think it is wrong to blank blatant OR. And Keith Tyler, you've got it wrong when you say "over one or two sources they don't like": all your sources are irrelevant except one (that I've seen thusfar).

3298:

an overview of literature about Muslim & Arabic cities: Andre Raymond, "Islamic City, Arab City: Orientalist Myths and Recent Views", British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 21, No. 1 (1994), pp.

3218:

Stephen Sharot, "Israel: Sociological Analyses of Religion in the Jewish State" Sociological Analysis, Vol. 51, Special Presidential Issue Sociology of Religion: International Perspectives (1990), pp. S63-S76

3294:

it describes how the segregation/fragmentation of an Arabic city affects non-Muslims of today! Georg Glasze "Segregation and seclusion: the case of compounds for western expatriates in Saudi Arabia" DOI

124: 1704:

You haven't found a reliable source calling this "religious segregation", nor have I found one calling accusing Israel and France of such. So until then, let's both keep such content out of the article.

1478:

I have now reviewed the section above. And I don't see a consensus - just various opinions. Itaqallah for that matter seems way more nuanced than BS, acknowledging that some is includable and some not.

1813:

Also please note this article is not "religious discrimination". It's "religious segregation". Secondly, even if we do include examples of discrimination, they have to be just that, "discrimination".

3241:

New reliable sources have been provided (books from scholars), that describe the "religious segregation" (explicitly written) as an organizational feature of Muslim cities from the middle ages till

2849:

The last point i.e. "dhimmi.com" I am with you. 1000% I agree it must go out, along with the phrase "religious apartheid". Even if it is true (but I doubt that), it is too much for an encyclopedia.

3971:

3. Requiring Baha'i educators to renounce their faith to teach is not a form of "segregation" but of discrimination. It would consitutue actual segregation if Baha'i educators could only teach in

2779:

privileges they grant to Muslims." - especially the first clause which is complete OR. As was said, denial of civil rights or voting may be religious discrimination - it is not segregation per se.

2810:

The next assertion is the only one of real relevance to the article topic, which pertains to the city of Mecca. But, as has been discussed, there are no sources asserting "religious segregation."

581:

Here is one of many applicable quotes from this citation. Remember segregation as defined by this article refers to seperation of any kind. It is not limited to the BS term "physical seperation".

618:

sure you'd agree that if Israel made a law forbidding non-Jewish worship and expelled non-Jews to leave the country, then it too would constitute religious segregation. Weather it's law or not.

2381:

Yes, they do. They say that people are allowed into or excluded from two entire cities based wholly and solely on religion. And no one actually disputes that this is happening. So there is no

1927:

Well... actually this term is so simple that there is no official definition (at least I am not aware of it)... But, here is the definition of the word "segregation" along with some sources:

2421:) is not a reliable one. If you want I can take this to WP:RSN. BTW, even the unreliable source makes no allegation of religious segregation. Keith, why are you (and some other wikipedians) 1155:"The 1701 Act of Settlement, which prohibits a Catholic from acceding to the throne, and which prevents the heir to the throne from marrying a Catholic, is still on Britain's statute books." 4048:

Seriously. BY LAW is one of the key tenets of segregation! Iranian Muslims do not choose, Saudi Arabian Muslims do not choose, Muslims in Israel do not choose. British Muslims DO choose.

1613:

Sorry, for entering into the "arena", I just want to say a couple of things and then leave peacefully. First, I am not an expert on the field, but from a quick look on Google Books and in

4002:

is enforcing it, if Muslims live in the same communities as other Muslims, if *any* minority tends to lives in a community together, it's NOT SEGREGATION. Get this garbage off the page.

3945:

Secondly, I'd like to know why Mackey is considered a reliable source. If it is simply on the basis of personal experience, then that doesn't seem reliable enough to make generalization.

1747:"No policy, as far as I am aware, states that the sources must specificly state that it is "religious segregation" for it to be relevant and sourced to this article." Perhaps you missed 421:

That segregation in this case has a religious basis is implicit in all the references. Or let me ask you: if it is not based on religion, then what is it based on? Restoring. Regards,

430:

To th extent it exists, it is based on ethnic, not religious basis. As I wrote before, people who believe this is religion-based are not quoted in the cites sources - so out it goes.

998:

You need to state that you have read the dictionary definition. You need to explain why you think "seperation" and "segregation" are different. You need to explain how you are being

4228: 1087:

The best way to nip this in the bud is thusly: either find reliable sources making this specific assertion, or refrain from inserting such material which currently constitutes an

2132:

Emm... the first part of your answer is great, it will help us to know what belongs in the article and what does not, but I am slightly confused by your 2nd part of your answer

1304:

While the source may indeed say that, does the source specifically say that "religious segregation" resulted from this system? If it does, can someone provide the quote? Thanks.

2713:

As for the source... I should have said before this quote is from the review that I have provided, which summarizes the contents of the book. Now the context is the following:

1701:...And Israel has Jewish-only settlements in the West-Bank. And France will throw out Muslim girls from the school who dare to follow their religion (by covering their hair). 1171:

That's certainly interesting. But where does the source say this is "religious segregation". What you have provided appears to be a case more of religious discrimination.

2796:

The next sentence is "In fact until March 1, 2004, the official Saudi government website stated that Jews were forbidden from even entering the country." - sourced to a

4406: 4402: 4388: 4280: 4276: 4262: 4146: 4142: 4128: 1242:. Your valiant upholding of WP policy on the removal of banned users edits for obvious reasons in this case, actually takes away from the encyclopedia in this instance. 3236:

claimed that there are no academic sources that explicitly link the Islam and "religious segregation" and therefore the text about the Muslim world should be deleted.

2240:

The standard of sourcing is poor, because they do not explicitly verify what people here are trying to establish. Ultimately it's original research and an unverified

1002:

IVE given that all sources in this article have the same issue. You need to explain why you would keep removing one section and retain all the others in violation of

1936: 1810:" Huh? What sort of logic is that? So I can talk about USA without using the words "America", "United States", "States", and other widely used terms for the country? 808:

On 3 September 1992 Sadiq 'Abdul-Karim Malallah was publicly beheaded in al-Qatif in Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province after being convicted of apostasy and blasphemy.

4533: 2550:- sources like "dhimmi.com" fall well short. Lastly, you said: "Are there any sources that claim that there is no religious segregation in the Muslim world?" - see 2507:

I would have said the same thing, but slightly different... "Please stop removing sourced text"... anyway, here is an article from WP with more reliable sources...

114: 2953:"It is not hard to see that monotheism's nature is to pick a quarrel" - quite a strange comment considering that pagans persecuted Christians in the Roman Empire. 2752:

Also if you look at the end of review, it talks about "Islam's recent efforts at city re-organization and desegregation". (Recent would be referring to the 1950s).

3470:

This is why this is going on for so long. The content is sound, the sources pass master, but this frivolous dispute continues, eating resources and patience. -

1989:

etc. In other words there is no word "so simple that there is no official definition". That said, I wasn't necessarily looking for a dictionary definition, per

897:

the separation for special treatment or observation of individuals or items from a larger group <segregation of gifted children into accelerated classes: -->

3982:

forms of segregation such as restricting to Jews to ghettos in premodern Europe. Further, nothing is mentioned on the seperation of Catholics and Protestants.

1542:

All the things mentioned are discrimination. It is segreation when people are of different religions are kept apart or kept out of a place or kept in a place.

1909:

Hey, Yahel, can you provide me the definition of "religious segregation" (and the source). I'm just curious as to what the official definition of the term is.

4538: 1791:"Directly related does not mean specificly states." - yes it does - if the source doesn't relate it specifically to the topic, then it's original research. 245: 199: 90: 3964:

1. The current section on Boznia and Herzegovina mentions nothing about religion. Earlier versions mentioned the seperation of Croats, Serbs and Bozniaks.

2508: 1827:

Of corse you can. It is quite easy to talk about America without mentioning the country name itself. Heck, I just did it in the second part of my response.

1416:

Two of your friends agree with you. Both consistantly agree with you, and rarely agree with me, therefore I assume they are your friends. There is nothing

1420:

about the section; there are plenty of satisfactory good sources in the section, and it never should have been removed. This is censorship on your part.

3539:- this sentence is not verified at all by the source used. I fail to comprehend why you keep removing the tag without even addressing the issue raised. 3741:

Any minor, trivial, incidential reason to entirely remove a self-explanatory, unambiguous image that you don't like people seeing will do, it seems. -

2694:

The thing is the sources for me a) are reliable enough, b) they do describe segregation based on religious reasons, c) they do not seem to violate the

4548: 2321:

Agreed with Itaqallah. A.Cython can you show that your 7 sources are accusing the Muslim world of "religious segregation". Please quote them directly.

900:. Again this disproves the BS allegation that segregation is a "physical" phenomena and vindicates the text he keeps removing under false pretenses. 293: 235: 1360:

and ofcourse myself. Now I agree that consensus can change, but in order for that to happen, you need to make convincing arguments for its inclusion.

4528: 2200:

supporting its applicability. If you call poor sourcing an "excuse" to delete material, then know that this "excuse" in enshrined in wiki policies.

4505: 4229:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120717012101/http://www.presstv.ir:80/detail/2012/07/13/250651/un%2Dfocuses%2Don%2Dmyanmar%2Damid%2Dmuslim%2Dplight/

2967:

Yes, the two may overlap (as segregation is one form of discrimination), but that does not seem to be the case in the sources I highlighted above.

2143:

have repeatedly tried to do here and elsewhere": what this suppose to mean? I only tried to offer some help here between the disagreement between

1150: 207: 81: 58: 1723:, as none of the sources there specificly state it is "anti-Arabism", and I suppose you have no objection to me removing the first paragraph of 4553: 2933:

Overall, i think the text about the Muslim world and in fact the article as whole needs a re-write/clean up; also a clear definition (given by

1196:

restoring sourced content from banned user as it is sourced, relevant to the article, and adds to a balance of facts that constitutes an NPOV.

4465: 1327:

disruption. This is obviously censorship, as you are removing well sourced highly appropiate material only because it counters your agenda.

768:

Similarly the U.S. has prohibited the entry of anyone affiliated with HAMAS or Hezbollah. That doesn't mean there is religious segregation.

715:

If lack of respect is official and constitutes such physical things as imprisonment, harassment, intimidation etc. then it is segregation.

3901:

sources in my recent edits, I never claimed they were unreliable, only that they didn't say what is claimed here. Please see the section "

3636:. The article goes on to quote Professor Allan Brimicombe, author of the study, and a professor at the Centre for Geo-Information Studies. 3221:"Residential integration and religious segregation in an Israeli neighborhood." International Journal of Intercultural Relations 13:19-35 1301:

The following source is used to claim that Christians in India practice the caste system: "Francis Buchanan, Indian Census Record, 1883"

1157:

Maybe there should be a Britain section that includes both Northern Ireland and religious segregation in the Monarchy. Food for thought.

4055: 4009: 3666: 3168: 3076:

deleting we need to re-write it. So either through some ideas on the table or let others do the editing without deleting their efforts.

2813:

As for the "dhimmi.com" source, which reports the claim of religious apartheid, I'm sure we can all see that it's not a reliable source.

2460:

Please stop the uncivil combative rhetoric. Why don't you show us the reliable sources unequivocally asserting 'religious segregation'?

1930:

The process of separating a group of people from others. Example:There is a segregation of the sexes in male and female changing rooms.

1211:

PLease don't proxy for a banned user. If you wish to delete that material, please indicate why you wish to remove it, independently per

327: 4358: 3321:

same time reliable (as they can be) sources make the statement that religious segregation is a characteristic feature of Muslim cities!

2337:

No, the statement that there are no reliable sources showing suitability for inclusion is disingenuous. Plenty of sources -- including

451:

There's no mention in this article of the historic issues of religious segregation in housing in the U.S. (referenced in films such as

203: 4543: 2194:

the phrase is open to interpretation such that it can be selectively not applied based on excuses, justifications or personal interest

2161:"I'm a good Wikipedian" I do not doubt that, but how this is related with the topic? Or do you imply that we are not good Wikipedians? 4106: 1109:

Once again sources that are not at all about religious segregation are bieng inputted into the article. Specifically, I removed some,

825:

I have removed the section because not one source accused the countries of "religious segregation". It also contained nonsense like "

4384:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

3486:

Your sources are not sound, as they don't talk about "religious segregation". If they do please, for the nth time, quote them below.

2710:(and not speaking in general) why the sources used are unreliable then I will have to assume that you are un-constructive editor! 2543: 2385:

reason to exclude. Opposing inclusion of an entire topic due to personal interest/opinion is what is in "fundamental violation" of

1748: 211: 187: 147: 2111:

is another fruitless exercise. But, I'm a good Wikipedian, and I make an effort to AGF, even when I have very serious doubts. -

3999: 3629: 1719:

sourced to this article. But since you wish to make that arguement, I suppose you will have no objection if I choose to remove

910:"the separation or isolation of a race, class, or ethnic group" Note how you definition doesn't talk about "religious group". 33: 1751:: "... to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information 1215:. What content have you restored? In this case material has been removed. You appear to be randomly redoing Hkelkar's edits. 1084:

of sources reporting specific issues in Saudi or Iran (which seem to be implying "discrimination" rather than "segregation").

4374: 1509:

Yes, there is religious segregation in the sources. But maybe that is hard to see if you think Christian prayer is a crime.

680:

This entire reference deals with the seperation and unequal treatment on non-muslims. see for example the second paraagraph;

4368: 4232: 1049:

You are following this talk page discussion correct? I suggest you read it one more time, the defintion is included above.

3932:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

4449: 4323: 2805: 796: 1687:

Yes, that was in the article at one time, but some people keep removing it, claiming it's not religious segregation...

395:

segregation but many people do, add a more rebutals to this arguement ie the treatment of Muslims in Isreal proper etc.

1114:

but these were restored. Can someone please provide the quotes from these sources that refer to religious segregation?

4464:

Is the accusation in citation 38 allowed to be on Knowledge (XXG), since no evidence supporting this claim is given?

1670:

declared that Mecca and Medina should be "safe places" for Muslims. This exclusivity is codified and enforced by the

4222: 3317:

that there is no religious segregation, do the following sources considered reliable on the issue of discrimination?

3211: 3162:

context). Secondly, it says "Muslim" countries subject non-Muslims to the status of "Dhimmi," but it fails to list

1671: 3818: 2539: 3633: 2877:(Exodus 20:3)... It is not hard to see that monotheism's nature is to pick a quarrel (please I mean no offense) . 2338: 1659: 477:, let me say that I would, but I have no time as I type this. I really don't even have time to type THIS, so ... 4405:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

4279:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

4145:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

4469: 3071:. Are they also about discrimination or is this a conspiracy against the Muslims? I think neither! You haven't 2730:

In other words it talks about the whole Muslim world, once I have the book on my hand I will post more details.

2425:

to accuse the Mecca/Medina of "religious segregation"? Why can't you find a scholar to say what you are saying?

1692: 1481:

Yahel, don't let anyone provoke you into outbursts. Especially if it's not true that Itaqallah agreed with BS.

570: 2616:

This deficiency is explained partly by Islam's aversion to public ostentation and partly by its insistence on

1808:

Something can easily be directly related to the topic without specifically stating it is related to the topic.

1755:

to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." (emphasis theirs)

350:

segregation. The accusers do not mention religion as a basis for what they call "apartheid" or "segregation".

39: 4059: 3670: 1875:

so. Just make sure you have a source for doing so (and an op-ed is acceptable as long as it isn't disputed).

507:

Karl Maier, can you please top adding unsourced content that appears to be original research to this article.

4440: 4350: 4314: 4214: 4013: 3172: 2842:

Thanks, for your replies, they will help us to resolve the issue and if possible we get something positive.

1266: 1220: 331: 4051: 4005: 3794:

where the term "religious apartheid" was used for a situation where people are separated based on religion.

3662: 2772:

A.Cython, let's go through each source one by one and you can show me exactly how the content is verified:

2347: 323: 3632:

is the source I was talking about. According to the source, this is the "opinion" of "academics" from the

1724: 1054: 1019: 453: 3535:

from sentences which I have questioned the factual accuracy and relevance of. I've discussed this source

2046: 1990: 1007: 4424:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

4412: 4342: 4298:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

4286: 4206: 4184: 4164:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

4152: 4078: 3968:

segregation of sexes found in Orthodox Judaism, Islam and Christianity than to "religious segregation."

3711: 2449: 2287: 1884: 1840: 1780: 1736: 1582: 1429: 1387: 1336: 89:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

4349:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 4213:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 3987: 2164:"I make an effort to AGF, even when I have very serious doubts." you are not the only one. Enjoy Life! 968:, none has brought up a source that actually says "religious segregation". I still await such a source. 3465:(XXG) from including content on religious segregation in Mecca. As the guidelines for blanking state: 2590:... so? Who violates WP policies? And please, if you still insist sources from scholars talking about 4362: 4253: 3950: 3910: 3859: 3826: 3805: 3770: 3745: 3731: 3646: 3620: 3605: 3570: 3517: 3491: 3474: 3429: 3398: 3140: 3125: 2760: 2430: 2393: 2354: 2326: 2205: 2115: 2068: 2054: 2002: 1914: 1865: 1818: 1709: 1678: 1563: 1526: 1499: 1407: 1368: 1309: 1176: 1134: 1119: 1070: 1037: 988: 973: 458: 4359:

https://archive.is/20120525144733/http://www.mideastyouth.com/2008/07/06/schools-out-for-the-bahais/

3598: 1011: 999: 21: 4034: 3592: 2363:

contexts, but are generalised and imputed upon the "Muslim world." These issues must be addressed.

1688: 1247: 1201: 4107:

https://web.archive.org/20130610153003/http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_26173.shtml

1946: 473:

attitudes), but this article would be another good place to discuss it. And before you tell me to

4488:

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between

3781: 3336: 3081: 2942: 2755:

Finally as his book was published in 1959, it doesn't appear to be relevant to modern day issues.

2735: 2634: 2529: 2409: 2231: 2169: 2032: 1968: 1622: 1287: 1262: 1216: 431: 405: 379: 374:

No, my point is not whether the accusations are true or false; it's just that they are not about

351: 346:

There is no basis to believe that accusations of "apartheid" in Israel are in any way related to

301: 285: 272:

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between

4409:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

4283:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

4149:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

3555: 3509: 3501: 3461: 2555: 2275: 1149:

It may be worth considering that the British government is a form of religious segregation. See

1003: 951: 637: 4425: 4299: 4165: 2063:

A.Cython, have you posted the definition from "papers in journals", as I can't seem to find it?

4501: 4110: 4088: 2995: 2957: 2718:

is explained partly by Islam's aversion to public ostentation and partly by its insistence on

1931: 1546: 1513: 1485: 1470: 1050: 1015: 937: 901: 878: 849: 754: 693: 656: 594: 550: 478: 4479:

Wiki Education assignment: INFO 200 Selected Topics in Information Literacy - Knowledge (XXG)

2521: 2386: 2382: 4180: 3529: 3413: 3382: 3067:

in the context of being a characteristic of Muslim cities and in one of the books says that

2869:

However, with monotheism, one believes in one God, the true God, all other are fake... e.g.

2441: 2279: 2148: 1935:

The separation or isolation of a portion of a community or a body of persons from the rest.

1876: 1832: 1772: 1728: 1574: 1421: 1379: 1328: 396: 362: 4432: 4306: 4172: 3836: 3723: 2972: 2699: 2695: 2653: 2649: 2241: 1212: 1190: 1088: 965: 4096: 3946: 3906: 3891: 3855: 3844: 3822: 3802: 3767: 3742: 3727: 3642: 3617: 3601: 3600:, does not such thing. I can't find any mention of "segregation" (religious or otherwise). 3566: 3514: 3487: 3471: 3425: 3394: 3250: 3233: 3199:(2)Also, everybody would appreciate when people speak based on facts! Here is an example: 3136: 3121: 3039:

sourced section on the topic, but as it stands the material is completely unencyclopedic.

2934: 2854: 2756: 2538:

One is at full liberty to remove 'sourced' text if it violates core content policies like

2426: 2402: 2390: 2351: 2322: 2201: 2144: 2133: 2112: 2064: 2050: 1998: 1910: 1861: 1814: 1705: 1675: 1656: 1559: 1522: 1495: 1403: 1364: 1305: 1172: 1130: 1115: 1066: 1033: 984: 969: 964:

While in the above discussion, editors try to define religious segregations through their

955: 924: 911: 887: 863: 838: 816: 769: 707: 669: 609: 563: 513: 498: 465:. I realize these topics surely are treated in more specific articles, such as the one on 178: 4375:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090425140346/http://www.newagebd.com/2005/may/21/front.html

3505: 3007:. The source you allude to is, as you know, unreliable - and hence not significant here. 2547: 2043:

Now, I have seen papers in journals that explicitly use this term "religious segregation"

1417: 1080: 474: 4369:

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/07/13/250651/un-focuses-on-myanmar-amid-muslim-plight/

4233:

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/07/13/250651/un-focuses-on-myanmar-amid-muslim-plight/

3591:

Recently content has been added on the UK and Egypt. The source with regards to the UK,

2274:

They do verify it, and they are not poor. Second, it is not, in any way, shape, or form

4391:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 4265:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 4131:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 4030: 3540: 3440: 3347: 3281: 3246: 3229: 3092: 3040: 3008: 2976: 2820: 2797: 2657: 2559: 2551: 2461: 2364: 2303: 2260: 2245: 1857: 1853: 1792: 1756: 1442: 1243: 1197: 1092: 732: 86: 4431:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

4398: 4305:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

4272: 4171:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

4138: 3883: 3004: 2786:

pattern of OR emerging - but apparently you fail to recognise this. Shall we continue?

4522: 3332: 3077: 2938: 2790: 2775: 2731: 2630: 2525: 2405: 2227: 2165: 2028: 1964: 1618: 1283: 1032:

BTW, you have also not provided any dictionary definition of "religious segregation".

641: 532: 297: 2902:

But, here are more books talking about religious segregation in the Muslim world...

1986: 1978: 3983: 2992: 2954: 1954:

If you simply substitute race with religion you know what religious segregation is.

1720: 1543: 1510: 1482: 1467: 834: 826: 779: 716: 619: 466: 462: 404:

Perhaps many people do, but they are not quoted in this section. I am removing it.

3637: 3564:

which sources alleges that the Muslim world is practicing "Religious segregation"?

923:

of your sources consider Saudi/Iranian laws as examples of "religion segregation"?

527:

The current section (on Saudi Arabia and Iran) is based on the following sources.

4378: 4223:

http://www.sauditourism.gov.sa/sct/indexlist.php?catid=39&maincat=Travel_Tips

3701:

Please kindly keep unreliable sources out of the article. Here are some I found:

1961:

Religious segregation involves the separation of people on the basis of religion.

874:

Religious segregation involves the separation of people on the basis of religion.

4513: 4484: 4473: 4454: 4328: 4192: 4063: 4038: 4017: 3954: 3914: 3895: 3863: 3848: 3830: 3808: 3773: 3748: 3735: 3674: 3650: 3623: 3609: 3574: 3549: 3520: 3495: 3477: 3449: 3433: 3417: 3409: 3402: 3386: 3378: 3356: 3340: 3176: 3144: 3129: 3101: 3085: 3049: 3017: 2997: 2985: 2959: 2946: 2829: 2764: 2739: 2666: 2638: 2586:(or at least I am not aware of them). Now you remove the text because you claim 2568: 2533: 2470: 2455: 2434: 2413: 2396: 2373: 2357: 2330: 2312: 2293: 2269: 2254: 2235: 2209: 2173: 2118: 2072: 2058: 2036: 2006: 1982: 1972: 1918: 1890: 1869: 1846: 1822: 1801: 1786: 1765: 1742: 1713: 1696: 1681: 1626: 1588: 1567: 1548: 1530: 1515: 1503: 1487: 1472: 1451: 1435: 1411: 1393: 1372: 1342: 1313: 1291: 1270: 1251: 1224: 1205: 1180: 1165: 1159: 1138: 1123: 1101: 1074: 1058: 1041: 1023: 992: 977: 958: 940: 927: 914: 904: 881: 866: 852: 841: 837:

and voting privileges they grant to Muslims". The source simply didn't say that.

819: 782: 772: 757: 719: 710: 696: 622: 612: 597: 516: 501: 481: 434: 425: 422: 408: 399: 382: 365: 354: 335: 317: 305: 268: 3790:

has also been used for situations where people are separated based on religion.

172: 4509: 4397:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 4271:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 4137:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 3887: 3840: 3288:

Oh.. and please do not throw another WP policy in my face, thanks in advance.

1658:. The highway through Mecca is not available to non-Muslims; they must take a 168: 3715: 162: 141: 3346:

restoring something inherently unencyclopedic, as I have documented above.

2605: 2419: 2343: 535:. U.S. Department of State - Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. 3886:

verifiable and reliable sources. Why these are not reliable in your view?

3799:

to show where Christianity Today used that term to describe that situation

2782: 2520:

is no religious segregation in the Muslim world? if not then under weight

198:-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us 1667: 194: 4093:

after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add

3718:

more like a spiritual website than one that would be a reliable source.

3215:

As for Israel... well you haven't search enough! Here are two sources:

898:

3: the separation of allelic genes that occurs typically during meiosis

830: 470: 3594:, specifically talks about "religious segregation". Good job on that. 3467:

Rather than blanking an article, fix it!, or use the deletion process.

1257:

Please don't spam talkpages. I have already responded to this concern

73: 52: 4029:

guilty of gender segregation, because women make less money than men.

3714:. No more reliable on third party issues than an Islamic website. It 3422:

That sounds like good advice. I have left a message on the talk page.

1663: 1652: 706:

Lack "of respect for religious freedom" is not religious segregation.

2226:

I am sure we can say the same thing without this quote. Enjoy Life!

1963:

which is in agreement with the above stated. I hope this will help.

1539:

The sources have already been presented above where you can read it.

4363:

http://www.mideastyouth.com/2008/07/06/schools-out-for-the-bahais/

4101:

to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

3705: 1648: 2991:

we know what segregation means and we know what religious means.

1363:

P.S. don't make personal attacks, by claiming I have an "agenda".

2515:

sources, especially when people do not agree with them. This is

919:

Also, you haven't responded to my comments above. Finally, does

536: 469:(a term commonly used in the U.S. to refer exclusively to anti- 3562:

Finally, Keith, why do you always run away from the question:

3328:(5)I still trying to track some more books from the library... 15: 3513:

guidelines and policies, the place to do that is not here. -

4238:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the

4116:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the

3722:

If there are any contentions, we can always take them up at

533:"Saudi Arabia - International Religious Freedom Report 2006" 4111:

http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_26173.shtml

2049:). If you could present atleast one source that'd be great. 1655:. Non-Muslims may not enter; this is "strictly prohibited" 1006:? You also need to explain how you are not in violation of 4353:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

4217:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

1959:

Finally, in WP at the introduction there is a definition:

3118:

Now, Bless sins mentioned that the book is from 1959, so?

4077:

I have just added archive links to one external link on

2573:

I am sorry but I am still puzzled... First, the sources

4346: 4210: 4082: 3536: 3423: 1614: 1357: 1353: 1324: 1258: 1240: 1238: 1236: 1234: 1232: 1112: 1110: 508: 492: 3500:

Well, if you can find a policy or guideline that says

3275:

a long-standing morphological feature of an Arab town.

3069:

under certain conditions it's an unique characteristic

1553:

The sources were hotly disputed. Unless you quote the

3975:

schools, such as those intended for Baha'i students.

2558:

it specifies material published by reliable sources.

948:

the definition of "segregation" does include religion

263:

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

192:, a project to improve Knowledge (XXG)'s articles on 3695:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

2883:

Romans (Pagans) vs Early Christians (Late antiquity)

1977:

A.Cython, the dictionary contains the definition of

642:"International Religious Freedom Report 2006 - Iran" 85:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 4401:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 4275:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 4141:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 2880:The history of Religious segregation through time: 2749:" In other words there is no specific mention here. 2798:different source talking about a different country 3308:(4)Now, about discrimination versus segregation: 1352:. The exclusion of this material is supported by 3819:Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence 3766:entire picture. What's the GF rationale there?- 797:"Saudi Arabia - An upsurge in public executions" 3761:and as a result you remove the entire image -- 3265: 3202: 2715: 2614: 2418:Keith Tyler, the only source you've presented ( 2346:avoid repeating myself elsewhere, likewise for 2302:is the source asserting religious segregation? 741:Full of proof od discrimination including this; 4387:This message was posted before February 2018. 4379:http://www.newagebd.com/2005/may/21/front.html 4261:This message was posted before February 2018. 4127:This message was posted before February 2018. 3978:4. There is a glaring lack of information on 2511:... It is funny and sad on how people define 2196:" No, the phrase can't be applied because of 1771:the words "discrimination" or "segregation." 1282:separate-ness is involuntary and oppressive. 8: 3792:Thus, to back up the statement, a reference 1727:either, as that has the exact same problem. 1348:This material was discussed a long time ago 1014:when you have reverted by multiple editors. 2889:Christians vs Muslims vs Jews (Middle ages) 2509:Status of religious freedom in Saudi Arabia 2298:Presuming your assertion is correct, where 862:reference talk about religious segregation? 321: 136: 99:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Discrimination 47: 4341:I have just modified 3 external links on 4205:I have just modified 2 external links on 3641:What problem do you have with the source? 3508:is involved, feel free. But the point of 2259:And dhimmi.com is not a reliable source. 294:Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment 3271:as the basis for identifiable districts 2875:"you shall have no other Gods before me" 2606:http://www.jstor.org/stable/543562?seq=1 2554:. If you see the very first sentence of 1466:why they should be removed alltogether. 3135:segregation", then maybe there is none. 2379:simply do not say what you want them to 292:Above undated message substituted from 138: 49: 19: 4534:Low-importance Discrimination articles 2857:mentioned that the book is from 1959, 665: 654: 559: 548: 491:Edits such as these are inappropriate. 4250:to let others know (documentation at 3960:This article has some critical issues 2423:the only persons on the face of earth 1647:Only Muslims may enter the cities of 7: 3689:The following discussion is closed. 2544:Knowledge (XXG):No original research 1749:Knowledge (XXG):No original research 1643:Mecca and Medina religious exclusion 220:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Religion 184:This article is within the scope of 79:This article is within the scope of 4539:WikiProject Discrimination articles 2582:, but there are no sources stating 2155:... and what have I done elsewhere? 1145:Britain - segregation in government 102:Template:WikiProject Discrimination 38:It is of interest to the following 4493: 4489: 2886:Christians vs Pagans (Middle ages) 2747:widely scattered in space and time 872:Here is the lead of this article; 277: 273: 14: 4345:. Please take a moment to review 4209:. Please take a moment to review 4081:. Please take a moment to review 4044:UK is on there but Israel IS NOT? 2601:, 1959, Cornell University Press 983:I'm still waiting for a response. 391:I understand you don't think its 4549:Low-importance Religion articles 4496:. Further details are available 4483: 3990:) 21:06, February 6, 2009 (UTC) 3928:The discussion above is closed. 2871:"I am God and there is no other" 2524:the text+sources should stay... 1065:several times over and and over. 280:. Further details are available 267: 171: 161: 140: 72: 51: 20: 4529:C-Class Discrimination articles 4367:Corrected formatting/usage for 4221:Corrected formatting/usage for 1666:. This practice is defended as 461:) and in organizations such as 447:U.S. housing and organizations? 361:this section could be improved. 240:This article has been rated as 119:This article has been rated as 3708:. Any open wiki is unreliable. 3291:Another two academic sources: 1941:And here is the definition of 512:Please consult WP:V and WP:OR. 502:20:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC) 435:04:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC) 426:23:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC) 1: 4554:WikiProject Religion articles 4474:00:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC) 4455:15:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC) 4329:22:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC) 2540:Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability 1314:19:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC) 1181:02:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC) 1166:23:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC) 1139:22:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC) 1129:Still waiting for the quotes. 978:03:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 783:14:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 720:14:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 623:14:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 409:03:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC) 316:Shouldn't be a section about 223:Template:WikiProject Religion 93:and see a list of open tasks. 3955:23:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC) 3915:03:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC) 3896:02:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC) 3864:02:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC) 3849:02:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC) 3831:16:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC) 2866:Polytheism versus Monotheism 2604:A review can be found here: 1725:Islam and antisemitism#Spain 1292:13:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 1271:13:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 1252:12:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 1225:12:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 1206:11:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 1124:03:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC) 959:01:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 941:09:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC) 928:21:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 915:21:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 905:05:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 882:04:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 867:02:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC) 853:01:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC) 842:00:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC) 820:18:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC) 773:03:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 758:22:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 711:03:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 697:22:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 613:03:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 598:22:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 482:22:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC) 306:08:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC) 4193:23:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC) 4064:12:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC) 3809:16:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC) 3774:15:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC) 3749:15:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC) 3736:04:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC) 3651:04:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC) 3624:20:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC) 3610:00:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC) 3525:Keith, please don't remove 3063:have explicitly the phrase 2594:, well here is one source: 517:03:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC) 4570: 4418:(last update: 5 June 2024) 4338:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 4292:(last update: 5 June 2024) 4202:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 4158:(last update: 5 June 2024) 4099:|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 4074:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 4018:16:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC) 3994:UK Segregation, seriously? 3575:02:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC) 3550:00:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 3521:22:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC) 3496:22:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC) 1102:15:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC) 1075:14:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 1059:22:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC) 1042:16:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC) 1024:15:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC) 993:05:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC) 644:. U.S. Department of State 636:U.S. Department of State ( 246:project's importance scale 82:WikiProject Discrimination 4544:C-Class Religion articles 4039:06:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC) 3753:I mean, you are opposing 3634:University of East London 3478:05:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC) 3450:15:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC) 3434:18:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC) 3418:18:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC) 3403:18:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC) 3387:18:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC) 3357:15:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC) 3341:16:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC) 3177:13:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC) 3145:18:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC) 3130:18:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC) 3102:19:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC) 3086:02:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC) 3050:22:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC) 3018:22:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC) 2998:22:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC) 2986:17:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC) 2960:22:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC) 2947:03:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC) 2830:22:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC) 2765:22:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC) 2740:15:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC) 2667:08:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC) 2639:01:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC) 2569:00:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC) 2534:17:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC) 2471:17:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC) 2456:07:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC) 2397:15:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC) 2374:17:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 2358:22:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC) 2331:14:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC) 2313:12:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC) 2294:00:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC) 2270:00:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC) 2255:00:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC) 2236:22:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC) 2210:21:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC) 2174:17:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC) 2119:17:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC) 2059:21:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC) 2037:10:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC) 2007:00:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC) 1973:16:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 1919:05:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC) 1891:05:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC) 1870:05:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC) 1847:04:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC) 1823:02:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC) 1802:00:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC) 1787:03:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC) 1766:18:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 1743:03:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 1714:01:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 1697:22:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC) 1682:19:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC) 1627:05:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC) 1589:04:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC) 1568:21:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 1549:21:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 1531:21:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 1516:20:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 1504:20:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 1488:20:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 1473:20:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 1452:22:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 1436:20:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 1412:20:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 1394:20:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 1373:20:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 1343:20:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 400:22:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC) 383:22:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC) 366:21:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC) 355:21:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC) 239: 156: 118: 67: 46: 4460:Hearsay for citation 38? 3930:Please do not modify it. 3692:Please do not modify it. 3675:23:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC) 3295:10.1007/s10708-006-9018z 2892:Catholics vs Protestants 2435:21:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC) 2414:07:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC) 2198:lack of reliable sources 2073:21:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC) 336:06:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC) 210:standards, or visit the 4334:External links modified 4198:External links modified 4070:External links modified 3902: 1399: 1349: 799:. Amnesty Intarnational 105:Discrimination articles 3313:My first question is: 3277: 3206: 2728: 2626: 1860:. This seems to be OR. 1441:topic of the article. 748: 687: 664:Check date values in: 588: 558:Check date values in: 28:This article is rated 4500:. Student editor(s): 4343:Religious segregation 4207:Religious segregation 4079:Religious segregation 3597:The source on Egypt, 3286:Please, enlighten me! 3269:religious segregation 3065:religious segregation 2592:religious segregation 2348:Portal:Discrimination 2224:"religious apartheid" 1151:Sydney Morning Herald 742: 681: 582: 454:Gentleman's Agreement 284:. Student editor(s): 32:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 4399:regular verification 4273:regular verification 4139:regular verification 4124:to let others know. 4085:. If necessary, add 3998:First of all, this: 3504:can be ignored when 2522:WP:NPOV#Undue weight 188:WikiProject Religion 4508:). Peer reviewers: 4389:After February 2018 4263:After February 2018 4242:parameter below to 4129:After February 2018 4120:parameter below to 3905:", regarding that). 3788:religious apartheid 3628:Oops wrong source. 2873:(Isaiah 45:18,22), 2789:The next source is 1721:Anti-Arabism#Israel 4498:on the course page 4443:InternetArchiveBot 4394:InternetArchiveBot 4317:InternetArchiveBot 4268:InternetArchiveBot 4134:InternetArchiveBot 3839:it to the source. 3782:Christianity Today 3712:Christianity Today 3681:Unreliable sources 2599:The world of Islam 1943:racial segregation 1089:original synthesis 608:is another matter. 282:on the course page 200:assess and improve 34:content assessment 4419: 4293: 4191: 4159: 4054:comment added by 4008:comment added by 3894: 3847: 3786:The similar term 3665:comment added by 3547: 3447: 3354: 3099: 3047: 3015: 2983: 2827: 2664: 2597:Xavier De Planhol 2566: 2468: 2446: 2371: 2310: 2284: 2267: 2252: 2153: 2098:based on religion 1938:Oxford dictionary 1881: 1837: 1799: 1777: 1763: 1733: 1579: 1449: 1426: 1384: 1333: 1099: 1081:original research 1079:There's a lot of 966:original research 569:CS1 maint: year ( 338: 326:comment added by 260: 259: 256: 255: 252: 251: 226:Religion articles 214:for more details. 135: 134: 131: 130: 4561: 4506:article contribs 4495: 4491: 4487: 4453: 4444: 4417: 4416: 4395: 4327: 4318: 4291: 4290: 4269: 4257: 4187: 4186:Talk to my owner 4182: 4157: 4156: 4135: 4100: 4092: 4066: 4020: 3890: 3843: 3694: 3677: 3587:London and Egypt 3545: 3541: 3534: 3528: 3445: 3441: 3352: 3348: 3097: 3093: 3045: 3041: 3013: 3009: 2981: 2977: 2825: 2821: 2662: 2658: 2564: 2560: 2466: 2462: 2452: 2445: 2442: 2369: 2365: 2308: 2304: 2290: 2283: 2280: 2265: 2261: 2250: 2246: 2152: 2149: 1997:think it exists. 1887: 1880: 1877: 1843: 1836: 1833: 1797: 1793: 1783: 1776: 1773: 1761: 1757: 1753:directly related 1739: 1732: 1729: 1672:Saudi government 1585: 1578: 1575: 1447: 1443: 1432: 1425: 1422: 1390: 1383: 1380: 1339: 1332: 1329: 1277:History section? 1162: 1153:article. Quote: 1097: 1093: 810: 805: 804: 673: 667: 662: 660: 652: 650: 649: 574: 567: 561: 556: 554: 546: 544: 543: 308: 279: 278:12 December 2019 275: 271: 228: 227: 224: 221: 218: 212:wikiproject page 181: 176: 175: 165: 158: 157: 152: 144: 137: 125:importance scale 107: 106: 103: 100: 97: 76: 69: 68: 63: 55: 48: 31: 25: 24: 16: 4569: 4568: 4564: 4563: 4562: 4560: 4559: 4558: 4519: 4518: 4490:19 January 2022 4481: 4466:189.206.144.172 4462: 4447: 4442: 4410: 4403:have permission 4393: 4351:this simple FaQ 4336: 4321: 4316: 4284: 4277:have permission 4267: 4251: 4215:this simple FaQ 4200: 4190: 4185: 4150: 4143:have permission 4133: 4094: 4086: 4072: 4049: 4046: 4026: 4003: 3996: 3962: 3939: 3934: 3933: 3835:You can always 3699: 3690: 3683: 3660: 3589: 3543: 3532: 3526: 3443: 3374: 3350: 3095: 3043: 3011: 2979: 2823: 2660: 2562: 2464: 2450: 2443: 2367: 2306: 2288: 2281: 2263: 2248: 2150: 1885: 1878: 1841: 1834: 1795: 1781: 1774: 1759: 1737: 1730: 1645: 1583: 1576: 1445: 1430: 1423: 1388: 1381: 1337: 1330: 1321: 1299: 1279: 1194: 1160: 1147: 1095: 888:Merriam Webster 802: 800: 795: 663: 653: 647: 645: 635: 568: 557: 547: 541: 539: 531: 489: 459:''Auntie Mame'' 449: 344: 314: 291: 265: 225: 222: 219: 216: 215: 179:Religion portal 177: 170: 150: 104: 101: 98: 95: 94: 61: 29: 12: 11: 5: 4567: 4565: 4557: 4556: 4551: 4546: 4541: 4536: 4531: 4521: 4520: 4480: 4477: 4461: 4458: 4437: 4436: 4429: 4382: 4381: 4373:Added archive 4371: 4365: 4357:Added archive 4335: 4332: 4311: 4310: 4303: 4236: 4235: 4227:Added archive 4225: 4199: 4196: 4183: 4177: 4176: 4169: 4114: 4113: 4105:Added archive 4071: 4068: 4045: 4042: 4025: 4022: 3995: 3992: 3961: 3958: 3938: 3935: 3927: 3926: 3925: 3924: 3923: 3922: 3921: 3920: 3919: 3918: 3917: 3882:Sure. We need 3873: 3872: 3871: 3870: 3869: 3868: 3867: 3866: 3803:Keith D. Tyler 3777: 3776: 3768:Keith D. Tyler 3751: 3743:Keith D. Tyler 3720: 3719: 3709: 3698: 3697: 3685: 3684: 3682: 3679: 3656: 3655: 3654: 3653: 3639: 3618:Keith D. Tyler 3588: 3585: 3584: 3583: 3582: 3581: 3580: 3579: 3578: 3577: 3560: 3515:Keith D. Tyler 3484: 3472:Keith D. Tyler 3459: 3458: 3457: 3456: 3455: 3454: 3453: 3452: 3373: 3370: 3368: 3366: 3365: 3364: 3363: 3362: 3361: 3360: 3359: 3329: 3326: 3325: 3324: 3323: 3322: 3318: 3306: 3305: 3304: 3303: 3302: 3301: 3300: 3296: 3282:User:Itaqallah 3278: 3263: 3262: 3261: 3260: 3259: 3247:User:Itaqallah 3230:User:Itaqallah 3226: 3225: 3224: 3223: 3222: 3219: 3213: 3207: 3197: 3194: 3184: 3182: 3181: 3180: 3179: 3152: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3132: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3053: 3052: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3022: 3021: 3020: 2968: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2935:Keith D. Tyler 2926: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2919: 2915: 2911: 2907: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2893: 2890: 2887: 2884: 2878: 2863: 2853:details. Now, 2850: 2847: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2811: 2808: 2801: 2794: 2787: 2780: 2770: 2753: 2750: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2645: 2627: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2552:negative proof 2488: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2416: 2403:Keith D. Tyler 2391:Keith D. Tyler 2352:Keith D. Tyler 2335: 2334: 2333: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2272: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2162: 2159: 2156: 2134:Keith D. Tyler 2113:Keith D. Tyler 2108: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1939: 1933: 1922: 1921: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1858:Papal_conclave 1854:Sistine Chapel 1828: 1811: 1804: 1702: 1699: 1689:Drunkayatollah 1676:Keith D. Tyler 1644: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1540: 1537: 1491: 1490: 1479: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1361: 1320: 1317: 1298: 1295: 1278: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1228: 1227: 1193: 1188: 1186: 1184: 1183: 1146: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1085: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1044: 996: 995: 962: 961: 933: 932: 931: 930: 890:dictionary of 870: 869: 848:segregation". 845: 844: 812: 811: 792: 791: 790: 789: 788: 787: 786: 785: 752: 751: 750: 749: 736: 735: 729: 728: 727: 726: 725: 724: 723: 722: 691: 690: 689: 688: 675: 674: 632: 631: 630: 629: 628: 627: 626: 625: 592: 591: 590: 589: 576: 575: 525: 524: 520: 519: 510: 488: 485: 448: 445: 444: 443: 442: 441: 440: 439: 438: 437: 414: 413: 412: 411: 388: 387: 386: 385: 369: 368: 343: 342:Israel section 340: 313: 310: 274:28 August 2019 264: 261: 258: 257: 254: 253: 250: 249: 242:Low-importance 238: 232: 231: 229: 183: 182: 166: 154: 153: 151:Low‑importance 145: 133: 132: 129: 128: 121:Low-importance 117: 111: 110: 108: 96:Discrimination 91:the discussion 87:Discrimination 77: 65: 64: 62:Low‑importance 59:Discrimination 56: 44: 43: 37: 26: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4566: 4555: 4552: 4550: 4547: 4545: 4542: 4540: 4537: 4535: 4532: 4530: 4527: 4526: 4524: 4517: 4515: 4511: 4507: 4503: 4499: 4486: 4478: 4476: 4475: 4471: 4467: 4459: 4457: 4456: 4451: 4446: 4445: 4434: 4430: 4427: 4423: 4422: 4421: 4414: 4408: 4404: 4400: 4396: 4390: 4385: 4380: 4376: 4372: 4370: 4366: 4364: 4360: 4356: 4355: 4354: 4352: 4348: 4344: 4339: 4333: 4331: 4330: 4325: 4320: 4319: 4308: 4304: 4301: 4297: 4296: 4295: 4288: 4282: 4278: 4274: 4270: 4264: 4259: 4255: 4249: 4245: 4241: 4234: 4230: 4226: 4224: 4220: 4219: 4218: 4216: 4212: 4208: 4203: 4197: 4195: 4194: 4188: 4181: 4174: 4170: 4167: 4163: 4162: 4161: 4154: 4148: 4144: 4140: 4136: 4130: 4125: 4123: 4119: 4112: 4108: 4104: 4103: 4102: 4098: 4090: 4084: 4080: 4075: 4069: 4067: 4065: 4061: 4057: 4056:79.71.107.222 4053: 4043: 4041: 4040: 4036: 4032: 4023: 4021: 4019: 4015: 4011: 4010:99.250.97.108 4007: 4000: 3993: 3991: 3989: 3985: 3981: 3976: 3974: 3969: 3965: 3959: 3957: 3956: 3952: 3948: 3943: 3937:Sandra Mackey 3936: 3931: 3916: 3912: 3908: 3904: 3899: 3898: 3897: 3893: 3889: 3885: 3881: 3880: 3879: 3878: 3877: 3876: 3875: 3874: 3865: 3861: 3857: 3852: 3851: 3850: 3846: 3842: 3838: 3834: 3833: 3832: 3828: 3824: 3820: 3816: 3812: 3811: 3810: 3807: 3804: 3800: 3795: 3791: 3789: 3783: 3779: 3778: 3775: 3772: 3769: 3764: 3760: 3756: 3752: 3750: 3747: 3744: 3740: 3739: 3738: 3737: 3733: 3729: 3725: 3717: 3713: 3710: 3707: 3704: 3703: 3702: 3696: 3693: 3687: 3686: 3680: 3678: 3676: 3672: 3668: 3667:92.41.156.147 3664: 3652: 3648: 3644: 3640: 3638: 3635: 3631: 3627: 3626: 3625: 3622: 3619: 3614: 3613: 3612: 3611: 3607: 3603: 3599: 3595: 3593: 3586: 3576: 3572: 3568: 3565: 3561: 3557: 3553: 3552: 3551: 3548: 3546: 3538: 3531: 3524: 3523: 3522: 3519: 3516: 3511: 3507: 3503: 3499: 3498: 3497: 3493: 3489: 3485: 3482: 3481: 3480: 3479: 3476: 3473: 3468: 3463: 3451: 3448: 3446: 3437: 3436: 3435: 3431: 3427: 3424: 3421: 3420: 3419: 3415: 3411: 3406: 3405: 3404: 3400: 3396: 3391: 3390: 3389: 3388: 3384: 3380: 3371: 3369: 3358: 3355: 3353: 3344: 3343: 3342: 3338: 3334: 3330: 3327: 3319: 3316: 3312: 3311: 3310: 3309: 3307: 3297: 3293: 3292: 3290: 3289: 3287: 3283: 3279: 3276: 3274: 3270: 3264: 3256: 3255: 3252: 3248: 3244: 3240: 3239: 3238: 3237: 3235: 3231: 3227: 3220: 3217: 3216: 3214: 3212: 3208: 3205: 3201: 3200: 3198: 3195: 3191: 3190: 3189: 3188: 3187: 3186: 3185: 3178: 3174: 3170: 3169:130.74.169.15 3165: 3161: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3146: 3142: 3138: 3133: 3131: 3127: 3123: 3119: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3103: 3100: 3098: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3083: 3079: 3074: 3070: 3066: 3062: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3054: 3051: 3048: 3046: 3037: 3036: 3035: 3019: 3016: 3014: 3006: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2996: 2994: 2989: 2988: 2987: 2984: 2982: 2974: 2969: 2965: 2961: 2958: 2956: 2952: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2944: 2940: 2936: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2918: 2916: 2914: 2912: 2910: 2908: 2906: 2904: 2903: 2901: 2894: 2891: 2888: 2885: 2882: 2881: 2879: 2876: 2872: 2867: 2864: 2860: 2856: 2851: 2848: 2844: 2843: 2841: 2840: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2831: 2828: 2826: 2817: 2812: 2809: 2806: 2802: 2799: 2795: 2792: 2788: 2784: 2781: 2777: 2774: 2773: 2771: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2762: 2758: 2754: 2751: 2748: 2744: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2737: 2733: 2727: 2725: 2721: 2714: 2711: 2709: 2703: 2701: 2697: 2668: 2665: 2663: 2655: 2651: 2646: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2636: 2632: 2628: 2625: 2623: 2619: 2613: 2607: 2603: 2602: 2600: 2596: 2595: 2593: 2589: 2585: 2581: 2576: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2567: 2565: 2557: 2553: 2549: 2545: 2541: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2531: 2527: 2523: 2518: 2514: 2510: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2472: 2469: 2467: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2453: 2447: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2432: 2428: 2424: 2420: 2417: 2415: 2411: 2407: 2404: 2401:I agree with 2400: 2399: 2398: 2395: 2392: 2388: 2387:core policies 2384: 2380: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2372: 2370: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2356: 2353: 2349: 2344: 2340: 2336: 2332: 2328: 2324: 2320: 2314: 2311: 2309: 2301: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2291: 2285: 2277: 2273: 2271: 2268: 2266: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2253: 2251: 2243: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2233: 2229: 2225: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2211: 2207: 2203: 2199: 2195: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2175: 2171: 2167: 2163: 2160: 2157: 2154: 2146: 2142: 2138: 2137: 2135: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2117: 2114: 2099: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2074: 2070: 2066: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2056: 2052: 2048: 2044: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2034: 2030: 2027: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2008: 2004: 2000: 1996: 1992: 1988: 1984: 1980: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1970: 1966: 1962: 1958: 1953: 1948: 1944: 1940: 1937: 1934: 1932: 1929: 1928: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1920: 1916: 1912: 1908: 1892: 1888: 1882: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1867: 1863: 1859: 1855: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1844: 1838: 1829: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1820: 1816: 1812: 1809: 1805: 1803: 1800: 1798: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1784: 1778: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1764: 1762: 1754: 1750: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1740: 1734: 1726: 1722: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1711: 1707: 1703: 1700: 1698: 1694: 1690: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1680: 1677: 1673: 1669: 1665: 1661: 1657: 1654: 1650: 1642: 1628: 1624: 1620: 1616: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1590: 1586: 1580: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1565: 1561: 1556: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1547: 1545: 1541: 1538: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1528: 1524: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1514: 1512: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1501: 1497: 1489: 1486: 1484: 1480: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1471: 1469: 1453: 1450: 1448: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1433: 1427: 1419: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1409: 1405: 1401: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1391: 1385: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1370: 1366: 1362: 1359: 1355: 1354:Relata refero 1351: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1340: 1334: 1326: 1318: 1316: 1315: 1311: 1307: 1302: 1296: 1294: 1293: 1289: 1285: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1264: 1263:Relata refero 1260: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1249: 1245: 1241: 1239: 1237: 1235: 1233: 1226: 1222: 1218: 1217:Relata refero 1214: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1203: 1199: 1192: 1189: 1187: 1182: 1178: 1174: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1164: 1163: 1156: 1152: 1144: 1140: 1136: 1132: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1121: 1117: 1113: 1111: 1103: 1100: 1098: 1090: 1086: 1082: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1072: 1068: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1043: 1039: 1035: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1009: 1005: 1001: 994: 990: 986: 982: 981: 980: 979: 975: 971: 967: 960: 957: 953: 949: 945: 944: 943: 942: 939: 929: 926: 922: 918: 917: 916: 913: 909: 908: 907: 906: 903: 899: 895: 889: 884: 883: 880: 875: 868: 865: 861: 857: 856: 855: 854: 851: 843: 840: 836: 832: 828: 824: 823: 822: 821: 818: 809: 798: 794: 793: 784: 781: 776: 775: 774: 771: 766: 765: 764: 763: 762: 761: 760: 759: 756: 747: 746: 740: 739: 738: 737: 734: 731: 730: 721: 718: 714: 713: 712: 709: 705: 704: 703: 702: 701: 700: 699: 698: 695: 686: 685: 679: 678: 677: 676: 671: 658: 643: 639: 634: 633: 624: 621: 616: 615: 614: 611: 606: 605: 604: 603: 602: 601: 600: 599: 596: 587: 586: 580: 579: 578: 577: 572: 565: 552: 538: 534: 530: 529: 528: 522: 521: 518: 515: 511: 509: 506: 505: 504: 503: 500: 494: 493: 486: 484: 483: 480: 476: 472: 468: 464: 463:country clubs 460: 456: 455: 446: 436: 433: 429: 428: 427: 424: 420: 419: 418: 417: 416: 415: 410: 407: 403: 402: 401: 398: 394: 390: 389: 384: 381: 378:segregation. 377: 373: 372: 371: 370: 367: 364: 359: 358: 357: 356: 353: 349: 341: 339: 337: 333: 329: 328:194.90.222.48 325: 319: 311: 309: 307: 303: 299: 295: 289: 287: 286:Pmonstertruck 283: 270: 262: 247: 243: 237: 234: 233: 230: 213: 209: 205: 201: 197: 196: 191: 190: 189: 180: 174: 169: 167: 164: 160: 159: 155: 149: 146: 143: 139: 126: 122: 116: 113: 112: 109: 92: 88: 84: 83: 78: 75: 71: 70: 66: 60: 57: 54: 50: 45: 41: 35: 27: 23: 18: 17: 4502:Jnuhanovich2 4482: 4463: 4441: 4438: 4413:source check 4392: 4386: 4383: 4340: 4337: 4315: 4312: 4287:source check 4266: 4260: 4247: 4243: 4239: 4237: 4204: 4201: 4178: 4153:source check 4132: 4126: 4121: 4117: 4115: 4076: 4073: 4050:— Preceding 4047: 4027: 3997: 3979: 3977: 3972: 3970: 3966: 3963: 3944: 3940: 3929: 3814: 3798: 3793: 3787: 3785: 3762: 3758: 3754: 3721: 3700: 3691: 3688: 3657: 3596: 3590: 3563: 3542: 3466: 3460: 3442: 3375: 3372:Muslim world 3367: 3349: 3314: 3285: 3272: 3268: 3266: 3242: 3203: 3183: 3163: 3159: 3117: 3094: 3073:conclusively 3072: 3068: 3064: 3060: 3042: 3032: 3010: 2978: 2874: 2870: 2865: 2858: 2822: 2746: 2729: 2723: 2719: 2716: 2712: 2708:specifically 2707: 2704: 2693: 2659: 2621: 2617: 2615: 2598: 2591: 2587: 2583: 2579: 2574: 2561: 2516: 2512: 2463: 2440:censorship. 2422: 2378: 2366: 2305: 2299: 2262: 2247: 2244:of sources. 2223: 2197: 2193: 2140: 2109: 2097: 2047:WP:NOTDICDEF 2042: 2025: 1994: 1991:WP:NOTDICDEF 1960: 1950: 1942: 1807: 1794: 1758: 1752: 1646: 1554: 1492: 1464: 1444: 1322: 1303: 1300: 1297:Source quote 1280: 1229: 1195: 1185: 1158: 1154: 1148: 1108: 1094: 1091:of sources. 1051:Prester John 1048: 1016:Prester John 1008:WP:CONSENSUS 997: 963: 947: 938:Prester John 934: 920: 902:Prester John 893: 892:Segregation' 891: 886:Here is the 885: 879:Prester John 873: 871: 859: 850:Prester John 846: 835:civil rights 833:some of the 827:Saudi Arabia 815:the section. 813: 807: 801:. Retrieved 755:Prester John 753: 744: 743: 733:Saudi Arabia 694:Prester John 692: 683: 682: 646:. Retrieved 595:Prester John 593: 584: 583: 540:. Retrieved 526: 495: 490: 479:Lawikitejana 467:antisemitism 452: 450: 392: 375: 347: 345: 322:— Preceding 320:in Greece? 315: 290: 266: 241: 202:articles to 193: 186: 185: 120: 80: 40:WikiProjects 4494:13 May 2022 4254:Sourcecheck 4004:—Preceding 3706:Wiki travel 3661:—Preceding 3267:Ethnic and 2783:This source 2776:This source 2724:segregation 2722:and ethnic 2622:segregation 2620:and ethnic 2339:one picture 1856:during the 831:non-Muslims 397:Hypnosadist 363:Hypnosadist 318:Mount Athos 312:Mount Athos 4523:Categories 4450:Report bug 4324:Report bug 3980:historical 3947:Bless sins 3907:Bless sins 3856:Bless sins 3823:Bless sins 3780:Regarding 3755:references 3728:Bless sins 3643:Bless sins 3602:Bless sins 3567:Bless sins 3488:Bless sins 3426:Bless sins 3395:Bless sins 3258:following: 3251:Bless sins 3234:Bless sins 3137:Bless sins 3122:Bless sins 2862:mentioned: 2855:Bless sins 2757:Bless sins 2702:policies. 2644:disproven. 2444:YahelGuhan 2427:Bless sins 2323:Bless sins 2282:YahelGuhan 2202:Bless sins 2151:YahelGuhan 2145:Bless sins 2065:Bless sins 2051:Bless sins 1999:Bless sins 1947:Britannica 1911:Bless sins 1879:YahelGuhan 1862:Bless sins 1835:YahelGuhan 1815:Bless sins 1775:YahelGuhan 1731:YahelGuhan 1706:Bless sins 1577:YahelGuhan 1560:Bless sins 1523:Bless sins 1496:Bless sins 1424:YahelGuhan 1404:Bless sins 1382:YahelGuhan 1365:Bless sins 1331:YahelGuhan 1319:Censorship 1306:Bless sins 1173:Bless sins 1131:Bless sins 1116:Bless sins 1067:Bless sins 1034:Bless sins 1012:WP:DISRUPT 1000:WP:DISRUPT 985:Bless sins 970:Bless sins 956:Bless sins 925:Bless sins 912:Bless sins 864:Bless sins 839:Bless sins 817:Bless sins 803:2007-05-08 770:Bless sins 708:Bless sins 648:2006-11-08 638:2005-09-15 610:Bless sins 542:2007-05-08 514:Bless sins 499:Bless sins 4433:this tool 4426:this tool 4307:this tool 4300:this tool 4173:this tool 4166:this tool 4031:Wheatsing 3888:≈ jossi ≈ 3841:≈ jossi ≈ 3837:attribute 3559:deletion. 3544:ITAQALLAH 3444:ITAQALLAH 3351:ITAQALLAH 3096:ITAQALLAH 3044:ITAQALLAH 3012:ITAQALLAH 2980:ITAQALLAH 2824:ITAQALLAH 2720:religious 2661:ITAQALLAH 2618:religious 2563:ITAQALLAH 2465:ITAQALLAH 2368:ITAQALLAH 2307:ITAQALLAH 2300:precisely 2264:ITAQALLAH 2249:ITAQALLAH 2242:synthesis 1796:ITAQALLAH 1760:ITAQALLAH 1446:ITAQALLAH 1358:Itaqallah 1323:BS, stop 1096:ITAQALLAH 393:religious 376:religious 348:religious 4439:Cheers.— 4313:Cheers.— 4179:Cheers.— 4089:cbignore 4052:unsigned 4006:unsigned 3757:for the 3663:unsigned 3556:WP:BLANK 3510:WP:BLANK 3502:WP:BLANK 3462:Blanking 3333:A.Cython 3164:a single 3078:A.Cython 2939:A.Cython 2791:this one 2732:A.Cython 2631:A.Cython 2556:WP:UNDUE 2526:A.Cython 2513:reliable 2406:A.Cython 2276:WP:SYNTH 2228:A.Cython 2166:A.Cython 2029:A.Cython 1965:A.Cython 1668:Mohammad 1662:through 1619:A.Cython 1555:specific 1284:Pairadox 1004:WP:POINT 952:WP:SYNTH 657:cite web 551:cite web 523:Still OR 497:sources. 324:unsigned 298:PrimeBOT 217:Religion 195:Religion 148:Religion 4347:my edit 4240:checked 4211:my edit 4189::Online 4118:checked 4083:my edit 3984:Evaniax 3973:certain 3759:caption 3554:Keith, 3530:dubious 3393:button. 3315:Suppose 2993:Str1977 2955:Str1977 2895:etc etc 2383:WP:NPOV 1558:better? 1544:Str1977 1511:Str1977 1483:Str1977 1468:Str1977 780:Rune X2 717:Rune X2 620:Rune X2 475:be bold 244:on the 123:on the 30:C-class 4514:QUMCEB 4248:failed 4097:nobots 3892:(talk) 3845:(talk) 3724:WP:RSN 3410:Bidgee 3379:Bidgee 3160:modern 2973:WP:SYN 2700:WP:NOR 2696:WP:SYN 2654:WP:NOR 2650:WP:SYN 2629:well? 1983:ground 1664:Jeddah 1660:bypass 1653:Medina 1521:quote? 1213:WP:BAN 1191:WP:BAN 1161:Lester 666:|date= 560:|year= 471:Jewish 432:Isarig 423:Huldra 406:Isarig 380:Pecher 352:Pecher 36:scale. 4510:Zapn7 3817:(see 3716:looks 3537:above 3506:WP:OR 2136:.... 1952:race. 1945:from 1649:Mecca 1615:JSTOR 1494:here? 1418:WP:OR 1244:Nambo 1198:Nambo 858:Does 829:deny 4492:and 4470:talk 4244:true 4122:true 4060:talk 4035:talk 4024:Iran 4014:talk 3988:talk 3951:talk 3911:talk 3884:WP:V 3860:talk 3854:one. 3827:talk 3732:talk 3671:talk 3647:talk 3630:This 3606:talk 3571:talk 3492:talk 3430:talk 3414:talk 3399:talk 3383:talk 3337:talk 3299:3-18 3280:Now 3249:and 3232:and 3173:talk 3141:talk 3126:talk 3082:talk 3005:WP:V 2943:talk 2761:talk 2736:talk 2698:and 2652:and 2635:talk 2548:here 2542:and 2530:talk 2451:talk 2431:talk 2410:talk 2389:. - 2350:. - 2327:talk 2289:talk 2232:talk 2206:talk 2170:talk 2147:and 2139:"as 2069:talk 2055:talk 2033:talk 2003:talk 1987:kill 1979:hand 1969:talk 1915:talk 1886:talk 1866:talk 1842:talk 1819:talk 1782:talk 1738:talk 1710:talk 1693:talk 1674:. - 1623:talk 1584:talk 1564:talk 1536:him. 1527:talk 1500:talk 1431:talk 1408:talk 1400:here 1389:talk 1369:talk 1350:here 1338:talk 1325:this 1310:talk 1288:talk 1267:talk 1259:here 1248:talk 1221:talk 1202:talk 1177:talk 1135:talk 1120:talk 1071:talk 1055:talk 1038:talk 1020:talk 1010:and 989:talk 974:talk 670:help 571:link 564:help 537:2006 457:and 332:talk 302:talk 276:and 206:and 204:good 4407:RfC 4377:to 4361:to 4281:RfC 4258:). 4246:or 4231:to 4147:RfC 4109:to 3815:you 3763:not 3243:now 3228:(3) 2859:so? 2517:not 2141:you 1651:or 921:any 860:any 640:). 296:by 236:Low 208:1.0 115:Low 4525:: 4516:. 4512:, 4472:) 4420:. 4415:}} 4411:{{ 4294:. 4289:}} 4285:{{ 4256:}} 4252:{{ 4160:. 4155:}} 4151:{{ 4095:{{ 4091:}} 4087:{{ 4062:) 4037:) 4016:) 3953:) 3913:) 3903:OR 3862:) 3829:) 3821:). 3734:) 3673:) 3649:) 3608:) 3573:) 3533:}} 3527:{{ 3494:) 3432:) 3416:) 3401:) 3385:) 3339:) 3273:is 3175:) 3143:) 3128:) 3084:) 3061:do 2945:) 2763:) 2738:) 2637:) 2588:-X 2584:-X 2575:do 2532:) 2454:) 2433:) 2412:) 2329:) 2292:) 2278:. 2234:) 2208:) 2172:) 2100:". 2071:) 2057:) 2041:' 2035:) 2005:) 1995:we 1985:, 1981:, 1971:) 1949:: 1917:) 1889:) 1868:) 1845:) 1821:) 1785:) 1741:) 1712:) 1695:) 1625:) 1587:) 1566:) 1529:) 1502:) 1434:) 1410:) 1392:) 1371:) 1356:, 1341:) 1312:) 1290:) 1269:) 1261:. 1250:) 1223:) 1204:) 1179:) 1137:) 1122:) 1073:) 1057:) 1040:) 1022:) 991:) 976:) 894:; 806:. 661:: 659:}} 655:{{ 555:: 553:}} 549:{{ 487:OR 334:) 304:) 288:. 4504:( 4468:( 4452:) 4448:( 4435:. 4428:. 4326:) 4322:( 4309:. 4302:. 4175:. 4168:. 4058:( 4033:( 4012:( 3986:( 3949:( 3909:( 3858:( 3825:( 3806:¶ 3771:¶ 3746:¶ 3730:( 3726:. 3669:( 3645:( 3621:¶ 3604:( 3569:( 3518:¶ 3490:( 3475:¶ 3428:( 3412:( 3397:( 3381:( 3335:( 3171:( 3139:( 3124:( 3116:" 3080:( 2941:( 2759:( 2745:" 2734:( 2726:. 2633:( 2624:. 2580:X 2528:( 2448:( 2429:( 2408:( 2394:¶ 2355:¶ 2325:( 2286:( 2230:( 2204:( 2192:" 2168:( 2116:¶ 2067:( 2053:( 2031:( 2001:( 1967:( 1913:( 1883:( 1864:( 1839:( 1817:( 1806:" 1779:( 1735:( 1708:( 1691:( 1679:¶ 1621:( 1581:( 1562:( 1525:( 1498:( 1428:( 1406:( 1402:. 1386:( 1367:( 1335:( 1308:( 1286:( 1265:( 1246:( 1219:( 1200:( 1175:( 1133:( 1118:( 1069:( 1053:( 1036:( 1018:( 987:( 972:( 954:. 946:" 672:) 668:( 651:. 573:) 566:) 562:( 545:. 330:( 300:( 248:. 127:. 42::

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index