<Dl> <Dd> <Dl> <Dd> <Dl> <Dd> I disagree radically with your initial assessment above, however . Sources and classification often have a non-neutral point of view . Lots of subject matters provoke non-neutral responses by historians . Our responsibility as wikipedians is to present the material in a neutral way, not to limit ourselves to neutral material or classification . Sand Creek massacre is not categorized as anti-Native American, for example (but the categories there are usefully illustrative of what could be done here). Juramentado, to take another example, isn't categorized as "anti-Christian ." Nazi Germany, Nazi Party or Bergen - Belsen concentration camp are not classified as "anti-Semitic," "anti-Polish" or "anti-Gypsy ." We wouldn't normally categorize an incident or an institution in such a broad way . Your use of the anti-Islam category is likewise inappropriate at 2012 Rakhine State riots and the other massacres you've recently categorized . The correct category would be the subcat Category: Persecution of Muslims, not the broader anti-Islam . (And why not "anti-Buddhist?") Besides, what you and I think correct is of small importance, since we can't base an article on our own opinions . I still haven't heard any mention of reliable sources using the same characterization you have used . Please present a source which agrees with your perspective, that the massacre occurred because of a hatred of Muslims or their ideology . BusterD (talk) 05: 36, 6 November 2012 (UTC) <Dl> <Dd> The anti-Islam dimension of the massacre was stated by perpetrators themselves . Joseph Massad, an Arab Christian, pointed out - and this is also readily available on other sources - that the reason given by US general Leonard Wood for the massacre was Filipino Muslims' "fanaticism"--not their "tribalism", not "primitivism", not "obstinacy", nor pronness to mutiny; but their religiousness . None of what you said above addresses this fact . All you do is ignore Wood's words to highlight other possible motivations . And while I agree with one part of your argument--that institutions such as states cannot be categorized with simplistic labels like "anti-Islam" or "anti-Christian"--I don't see how you can conclude, from this, that such argument also applies to incidents . That is an illogical leap . Incidents certainly can be categorized as anti-Islam . They also can be seen as anti-Christian, anti-American and so forth . Who can doubt that the 9 / 11 event was an instance of anti-US terrorism? Civilians were targeted because they were American or US residents, and the attack was perpetrated so as to provoke the US government into war . The attack thus qualifies as anti-American . The Crater massacre victims, all of whom were Muslim, were likewise targeted on account of their religion . The massacre therefore fits the "anti-Islam" description . </Dd> <Dd> And by the way, about the Rakhine riots, the reason it fits into the anti-Islam category, but not the anti-Buddhist, is that the Muslim part of the conflict is revolting--not because of the religion of their rivals--but because of their oppression (appalling, as said even by the UN) at the hands of both the state and their Buddhist neighbors . By contrast, Buddhist Burmese discrimination, governmental and social, against Rohingyas is due to their religion; it is informed by religious bigotry . And the Rohingyas are not alone . The Karen and the Chin ethnicities, both Christian, are also persecuted in Myanmar; it seems all non-Buddhist groups are . The religious (anti-non - Buddhist) dimension of Myanmar's persecution of minorities is clear and confirmed by many different developments . Same is true about the massacres that I added to the anti-Islam page . And mind you, I see more arbitrary inclusions into other Category pages about anti-religious attitudes: The Anti-Buddhism page, for example, includes the entry for the southern Thailand insurgency, even though the Muslim separatists are moved primarily, not by raw bigotry, but by ethnic nationalism against the Thai central government's disrespect against their distinct culture . This incident of violence on Buddhists in Bangladesh, likewise, was motivated, not by the Buddhist affiliation of the victims per se, but by the fact that a member of the victim community was accused of insulting Islam by posting pictures of desecration of the Qur'an . Unless insulting Muslims is a fundamental Buddhist obligation, I don't see why such incident should be seen as anti-Buddhist per se; anti-blasphemy is more like it . </Dd> <Dd> One can make much better cases that, for example, the Karantina massacre--and, for that matter, also its 1982 replicate--was moved by anti-Islam prejudice, than for the "anti-Buddhist" motivation of the southern Thailand insurgency . BilalSaleh (talk) 22: 09, 10 November 2012 (UTC) <Dl> <Dd> You make your case well . The Massad article is really good, and I'll stand corrected by a reliable source . Feel free to insert your previous statement with Massad cited . Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your contributions . Sorry if I came across as obstinate myself . Presented with such sources, I bow to your assertion . If I can be of any service, feel free to call on me . BusterD (talk) 23: 21, 10 November 2012 (UTC) </Dd> </Dl> </Dd> </Dl> </Dd> </Dl> </Dd> </Dl> </Dd> </Dl> <Dd> <Dl> <Dd> <Dl> <Dd> I disagree radically with your initial assessment above, however . Sources and classification often have a non-neutral point of view . Lots of subject matters provoke non-neutral responses by historians . Our responsibility as wikipedians is to present the material in a neutral way, not to limit ourselves to neutral material or classification . Sand Creek massacre is not categorized as anti-Native American, for example (but the categories there are usefully illustrative of what could be done here). Juramentado, to take another example, isn't categorized as "anti-Christian ." Nazi Germany, Nazi Party or Bergen - Belsen concentration camp are not classified as "anti-Semitic," "anti-Polish" or "anti-Gypsy ." We wouldn't normally categorize an incident or an institution in such a broad way . Your use of the anti-Islam category is likewise inappropriate at 2012 Rakhine State riots and the other massacres you've recently categorized . The correct category would be the subcat Category: Persecution of Muslims, not the broader anti-Islam . (And why not "anti-Buddhist?") Besides, what you and I think correct is of small importance, since we can't base an article on our own opinions . I still haven't heard any mention of reliable sources using the same characterization you have used . Please present a source which agrees with your perspective, that the massacre occurred because of a hatred of Muslims or their ideology . BusterD (talk) 05: 36, 6 November 2012 (UTC) <Dl> <Dd> The anti-Islam dimension of the massacre was stated by perpetrators themselves . Joseph Massad, an Arab Christian, pointed out - and this is also readily available on other sources - that the reason given by US general Leonard Wood for the massacre was Filipino Muslims' "fanaticism"--not their "tribalism", not "primitivism", not "obstinacy", nor pronness to mutiny; but their religiousness . None of what you said above addresses this fact . All you do is ignore Wood's words to highlight other possible motivations . And while I agree with one part of your argument--that institutions such as states cannot be categorized with simplistic labels like "anti-Islam" or "anti-Christian"--I don't see how you can conclude, from this, that such argument also applies to incidents . That is an illogical leap . Incidents certainly can be categorized as anti-Islam . They also can be seen as anti-Christian, anti-American and so forth . Who can doubt that the 9 / 11 event was an instance of anti-US terrorism? Civilians were targeted because they were American or US residents, and the attack was perpetrated so as to provoke the US government into war . The attack thus qualifies as anti-American . The Crater massacre victims, all of whom were Muslim, were likewise targeted on account of their religion . The massacre therefore fits the "anti-Islam" description . </Dd> <Dd> And by the way, about the Rakhine riots, the reason it fits into the anti-Islam category, but not the anti-Buddhist, is that the Muslim part of the conflict is revolting--not because of the religion of their rivals--but because of their oppression (appalling, as said even by the UN) at the hands of both the state and their Buddhist neighbors . By contrast, Buddhist Burmese discrimination, governmental and social, against Rohingyas is due to their religion; it is informed by religious bigotry . And the Rohingyas are not alone . The Karen and the Chin ethnicities, both Christian, are also persecuted in Myanmar; it seems all non-Buddhist groups are . The religious (anti-non - Buddhist) dimension of Myanmar's persecution of minorities is clear and confirmed by many different developments . Same is true about the massacres that I added to the anti-Islam page . And mind you, I see more arbitrary inclusions into other Category pages about anti-religious attitudes: The Anti-Buddhism page, for example, includes the entry for the southern Thailand insurgency, even though the Muslim separatists are moved primarily, not by raw bigotry, but by ethnic nationalism against the Thai central government's disrespect against their distinct culture . This incident of violence on Buddhists in Bangladesh, likewise, was motivated, not by the Buddhist affiliation of the victims per se, but by the fact that a member of the victim community was accused of insulting Islam by posting pictures of desecration of the Qur'an . Unless insulting Muslims is a fundamental Buddhist obligation, I don't see why such incident should be seen as anti-Buddhist per se; anti-blasphemy is more like it . </Dd> <Dd> One can make much better cases that, for example, the Karantina massacre--and, for that matter, also its 1982 replicate--was moved by anti-Islam prejudice, than for the "anti-Buddhist" motivation of the southern Thailand insurgency . BilalSaleh (talk) 22: 09, 10 November 2012 (UTC) <Dl> <Dd> You make your case well . The Massad article is really good, and I'll stand corrected by a reliable source . Feel free to insert your previous statement with Massad cited . Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your contributions . Sorry if I came across as obstinate myself . Presented with such sources, I bow to your assertion . If I can be of any service, feel free to call on me . BusterD (talk) 23: 21, 10 November 2012 (UTC) </Dd> </Dl> </Dd> </Dl> </Dd> </Dl> </Dd> </Dl> </Dd> <Dl> <Dd> <Dl> <Dd> I disagree radically with your initial assessment above, however . Sources and classification often have a non-neutral point of view . Lots of subject matters provoke non-neutral responses by historians . Our responsibility as wikipedians is to present the material in a neutral way, not to limit ourselves to neutral material or classification . Sand Creek massacre is not categorized as anti-Native American, for example (but the categories there are usefully illustrative of what could be done here). Juramentado, to take another example, isn't categorized as "anti-Christian ." Nazi Germany, Nazi Party or Bergen - Belsen concentration camp are not classified as "anti-Semitic," "anti-Polish" or "anti-Gypsy ." We wouldn't normally categorize an incident or an institution in such a broad way . Your use of the anti-Islam category is likewise inappropriate at 2012 Rakhine State riots and the other massacres you've recently categorized . The correct category would be the subcat Category: Persecution of Muslims, not the broader anti-Islam . (And why not "anti-Buddhist?") Besides, what you and I think correct is of small importance, since we can't base an article on our own opinions . I still haven't heard any mention of reliable sources using the same characterization you have used . Please present a source which agrees with your perspective, that the massacre occurred because of a hatred of Muslims or their ideology . BusterD (talk) 05: 36, 6 November 2012 (UTC) <Dl> <Dd> The anti-Islam dimension of the massacre was stated by perpetrators themselves . Joseph Massad, an Arab Christian, pointed out - and this is also readily available on other sources - that the reason given by US general Leonard Wood for the massacre was Filipino Muslims' "fanaticism"--not their "tribalism", not "primitivism", not "obstinacy", nor pronness to mutiny; but their religiousness . None of what you said above addresses this fact . All you do is ignore Wood's words to highlight other possible motivations . And while I agree with one part of your argument--that institutions such as states cannot be categorized with simplistic labels like "anti-Islam" or "anti-Christian"--I don't see how you can conclude, from this, that such argument also applies to incidents . That is an illogical leap . Incidents certainly can be categorized as anti-Islam . They also can be seen as anti-Christian, anti-American and so forth . Who can doubt that the 9 / 11 event was an instance of anti-US terrorism? Civilians were targeted because they were American or US residents, and the attack was perpetrated so as to provoke the US government into war . The attack thus qualifies as anti-American . The Crater massacre victims, all of whom were Muslim, were likewise targeted on account of their religion . The massacre therefore fits the "anti-Islam" description . </Dd> <Dd> And by the way, about the Rakhine riots, the reason it fits into the anti-Islam category, but not the anti-Buddhist, is that the Muslim part of the conflict is revolting--not because of the religion of their rivals--but because of their oppression (appalling, as said even by the UN) at the hands of both the state and their Buddhist neighbors . By contrast, Buddhist Burmese discrimination, governmental and social, against Rohingyas is due to their religion; it is informed by religious bigotry . And the Rohingyas are not alone . The Karen and the Chin ethnicities, both Christian, are also persecuted in Myanmar; it seems all non-Buddhist groups are . The religious (anti-non - Buddhist) dimension of Myanmar's persecution of minorities is clear and confirmed by many different developments . Same is true about the massacres that I added to the anti-Islam page . And mind you, I see more arbitrary inclusions into other Category pages about anti-religious attitudes: The Anti-Buddhism page, for example, includes the entry for the southern Thailand insurgency, even though the Muslim separatists are moved primarily, not by raw bigotry, but by ethnic nationalism against the Thai central government's disrespect against their distinct culture . This incident of violence on Buddhists in Bangladesh, likewise, was motivated, not by the Buddhist affiliation of the victims per se, but by the fact that a member of the victim community was accused of insulting Islam by posting pictures of desecration of the Qur'an . Unless insulting Muslims is a fundamental Buddhist obligation, I don't see why such incident should be seen as anti-Buddhist per se; anti-blasphemy is more like it . </Dd> <Dd> One can make much better cases that, for example, the Karantina massacre--and, for that matter, also its 1982 replicate--was moved by anti-Islam prejudice, than for the "anti-Buddhist" motivation of the southern Thailand insurgency . BilalSaleh (talk) 22: 09, 10 November 2012 (UTC) <Dl> <Dd> You make your case well . The Massad article is really good, and I'll stand corrected by a reliable source . Feel free to insert your previous statement with Massad cited . Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your contributions . Sorry if I came across as obstinate myself . Presented with such sources, I bow to your assertion . If I can be of any service, feel free to call on me . BusterD (talk) 23: 21, 10 November 2012 (UTC) </Dd> </Dl> </Dd> </Dl> </Dd> </Dl> </Dd> </Dl> <Dd> <Dl> <Dd> I disagree radically with your initial assessment above, however . Sources and classification often have a non-neutral point of view . Lots of subject matters provoke non-neutral responses by historians . Our responsibility as wikipedians is to present the material in a neutral way, not to limit ourselves to neutral material or classification . Sand Creek massacre is not categorized as anti-Native American, for example (but the categories there are usefully illustrative of what could be done here). Juramentado, to take another example, isn't categorized as "anti-Christian ." Nazi Germany, Nazi Party or Bergen - Belsen concentration camp are not classified as "anti-Semitic," "anti-Polish" or "anti-Gypsy ." We wouldn't normally categorize an incident or an institution in such a broad way . Your use of the anti-Islam category is likewise inappropriate at 2012 Rakhine State riots and the other massacres you've recently categorized . The correct category would be the subcat Category: Persecution of Muslims, not the broader anti-Islam . (And why not "anti-Buddhist?") Besides, what you and I think correct is of small importance, since we can't base an article on our own opinions . I still haven't heard any mention of reliable sources using the same characterization you have used . Please present a source which agrees with your perspective, that the massacre occurred because of a hatred of Muslims or their ideology . BusterD (talk) 05: 36, 6 November 2012 (UTC) <Dl> <Dd> The anti-Islam dimension of the massacre was stated by perpetrators themselves . Joseph Massad, an Arab Christian, pointed out - and this is also readily available on other sources - that the reason given by US general Leonard Wood for the massacre was Filipino Muslims' "fanaticism"--not their "tribalism", not "primitivism", not "obstinacy", nor pronness to mutiny; but their religiousness . None of what you said above addresses this fact . All you do is ignore Wood's words to highlight other possible motivations . And while I agree with one part of your argument--that institutions such as states cannot be categorized with simplistic labels like "anti-Islam" or "anti-Christian"--I don't see how you can conclude, from this, that such argument also applies to incidents . That is an illogical leap . Incidents certainly can be categorized as anti-Islam . They also can be seen as anti-Christian, anti-American and so forth . Who can doubt that the 9 / 11 event was an instance of anti-US terrorism? Civilians were targeted because they were American or US residents, and the attack was perpetrated so as to provoke the US government into war . The attack thus qualifies as anti-American . The Crater massacre victims, all of whom were Muslim, were likewise targeted on account of their religion . The massacre therefore fits the "anti-Islam" description . </Dd> <Dd> And by the way, about the Rakhine riots, the reason it fits into the anti-Islam category, but not the anti-Buddhist, is that the Muslim part of the conflict is revolting--not because of the religion of their rivals--but because of their oppression (appalling, as said even by the UN) at the hands of both the state and their Buddhist neighbors . By contrast, Buddhist Burmese discrimination, governmental and social, against Rohingyas is due to their religion; it is informed by religious bigotry . And the Rohingyas are not alone . The Karen and the Chin ethnicities, both Christian, are also persecuted in Myanmar; it seems all non-Buddhist groups are . The religious (anti-non - Buddhist) dimension of Myanmar's persecution of minorities is clear and confirmed by many different developments . Same is true about the massacres that I added to the anti-Islam page . And mind you, I see more arbitrary inclusions into other Category pages about anti-religious attitudes: The Anti-Buddhism page, for example, includes the entry for the southern Thailand insurgency, even though the Muslim separatists are moved primarily, not by raw bigotry, but by ethnic nationalism against the Thai central government's disrespect against their distinct culture . This incident of violence on Buddhists in Bangladesh, likewise, was motivated, not by the Buddhist affiliation of the victims per se, but by the fact that a member of the victim community was accused of insulting Islam by posting pictures of desecration of the Qur'an . Unless insulting Muslims is a fundamental Buddhist obligation, I don't see why such incident should be seen as anti-Buddhist per se; anti-blasphemy is more like it . </Dd> <Dd> One can make much better cases that, for example, the Karantina massacre--and, for that matter, also its 1982 replicate--was moved by anti-Islam prejudice, than for the "anti-Buddhist" motivation of the southern Thailand insurgency . BilalSaleh (talk) 22: 09, 10 November 2012 (UTC) <Dl> <Dd> You make your case well . The Massad article is really good, and I'll stand corrected by a reliable source . Feel free to insert your previous statement with Massad cited . Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your contributions . Sorry if I came across as obstinate myself . Presented with such sources, I bow to your assertion . If I can be of any service, feel free to call on me . BusterD (talk) 23: 21, 10 November 2012 (UTC) </Dd> </Dl> </Dd> </Dl> </Dd> </Dl> </Dd>

Reaction paper about comments on the moro massacre