Talk:Death worship

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 January 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Subject discussed in this article

This subject has nothing to do with simple veneration or worship of the dead (as opposed to accusations of glorification of death as something positive in itself), and the Thuggees weren't Muslims, and the Tamil Tigers aren't Muslims. AnonMoos 15:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adding irrelevant material to this article!

Disputes between Wahhabis and Shi`ites/Sufis about the veneration of the tombs of Pirs, Sheikhs, and holy men has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this article. AnonMoos 15:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, comrade, death and the dead are obviously not opposingly related but on a semantic plane so this article is directly related to not just 'worship of the dead' but also ancestor worship. The reference to Thugees you have put, only reafirms this relationship, since the construction id obviously political as well as religeous and therefore pushing a specific POV. It is interesting that you deny that the Thugees have Islamic influence when that is clearly false. You may benefit from considering Islam not as a monolithic or homogenous entity, but the Islamic practices from the Indus valley as a diverse range of culturally specific forms of Islam, incorporating what is known as Hinduism and various other strands - very distinct from Saudi/Arabian forms. 195.92.40.49 15:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice -- I really don't see what venerating the tomb of a Sufi holy-man with some humble prayers and mumbled rituals has in common with vociferously glorifying death for the sake of death, and praising those who kill others while killing themselves (and your vague invocation of "semantic planes" really doesn't help me to see any valid connection). Many cultures and societies going far back in time have commonly venerated or "worshipped" ancestors; but glorifying death for its own sake is a rather specialized mindset, which only occurs in particular circumstances.

Meanwhile, there are several articles which are appropriate for discussing Wahhabi views vs. Sufi/Shi`ite views on the veneration of the tombs of holy men, so it would be better if you could discuss such matters there, and leave this article to its original intended purpose. By the way, did you hear the new Hamas motto? « لا إله لنا إلا الموت، حماس رسول الموت » It doesn't sound too Sufi to me! AnonMoos 16:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct comrade - you really don't see: You have a very specific POV that you are trying to push here. Maybe you need to accept the poverty of your own understanding and POV in order to move forward. Sufism is far from a homogenous whole, the term refers to a wide range of sometimes contradictory ideologies, beliefs, practices and methods. It would seem to me that is your invocation of this subject, with no real knowledge to share, a vague reference to the thugees and suicide bombers, no mention of Kali Ma and other manifestations of the extremely complex faith systems of the Indus valley, along with a very specific POV agenda, that is your real problem here. Remember - sometimes its easier to see in the dark. and BTW - I am really not interested in the latest fascist slogan, thank u. 195.92.40.49 08:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your goal is obfuscation

Too bad that your goal is to drag in any plausibly semi-relevant looking material that you can in order to obscure the main focus of this article. Your sudden dramatic left turn from Sufi-Wahhabi controversies to ancient mythologies is rather diagnostic of your try-anything-to-obfuscate strategy... AnonMoos 17:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue i have raised is of the religeon and geography of the Thugees. This is related to the development of Sufism and Hinduism. This maybe contrary to your political POV as to what u think should be the "main focus of this article", but that doesn't mean i have a strategy to obfuscate 195.92.40.49 09:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You went from dragging in material on Sufi-Wahhabi disputes about the veneration of saints (thus ignoring the distinction between DEAD-worship and DEATH-worship) to dragging in material about ancient mythologies (thus ignoring the distinction between having a "departmental" god of death in one's polytheistic pantheon vs. attitudes of active glorification of death as an encouragment to commit crimes -- I've tried to explain this better in the current version of the article). I wait to see what further irrelevant material you'll try to drag in. Please entertain me.

Thuggees may have been living in the Mogul-ruled empire, but there's no evidence that I've seen that they were Muslim in any religiously meaningful sense. P.S. Your latest kick of accusing anyone who's not a 100% rigid dogmatic supporter of cultural relativism of being a "racist imperialist" is actually kind of boring compared to your other more eccentric editing patterns. Here's another slogan for you -- wonder if you'll also consider this one to be "fascist":
المتبرجة خير من الإرهابي المنتحر
AnonMoos 21:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to check the Thugee entry and make your criticisms there - it is widely known that they were made up of both hindus and muslims and constituted part of a religeous synthesis, as reflected in the wikipedia entry. The accusation of worshiping death and the dead is connected at precisely this point - ie it is, as u put it political rhetoric. Also, the difference between mono and poly-theism is rendered meaningless in these cases when we talk of living religeous practices. So in terms of political rhetoric the difference is between self-definition as empowerment and accusation as a basis for persecution. 195.92.40.49 11:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I'm looking at the "Thuggee" article right now, and reading this: "at any rate, their religious creed and staunch worship of Kali, one of the Hindu Tantric Goddesses, showed no Islamic influence". And why do you insist on conflating Thuggee practices with the ordinary Hindu recognition of "departmental" deities of death such as Yama??? (There's no evidence in the Thuggee article that Thuggees particularly worshipped Yama, while probably many hundreds of millions of Hindus across history included Yama as part of the Hindu pantheon without becoming Thuggees.) This seems to be part of your pattern of trying to confuse things which should remain distinct... AnonMoos 16:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again comrade, 'my' pattern is of trying to get the theory to fit the facts - not the other way round as you seem to be keen on doing! While the Thugee entry states that both muslims and hindus were practicing thugees, ie the worship was not limited to Kali Ma, it does not go into the theology or psychogeography in any real depth. 195.92.40.49 10:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, YOU were the one telling ME to look at the Thuggee article. If you think it has so many inadequacies, then it would have been more honest of you to refrain from doing so in the first place. In any case, Kali is not really a "departmental deity" of death, so it doesn't make much sense to group the thuggees together with the listing of Hindu "departmental" deities of death -- not to mention that the thuggees are much more relevant to the OTHER meaning of death-worship, discussion of which you seem to be trying to suppress.... AnonMoos 14:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the issue of death worship is interesting because it is a politcial as well as a religeous construct - as i have stated already. I sympathise that this is not the easiest concept to get your head around - but that does not mean that you are excused from seeing me as some kind of bogeyman !! step back - let the article develop a little without trying to grasp control of it as you are so desperate to push your own political POV - and we might just learn something ! 195.92.40.49 10:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll feel inclined to "let go" if and when I understand that your actions are motivated by a desire to improve Wikipedia -- but so far, the sum total of your actions has done very little to persuade me that you're not motivated by a desire (for reasons of your own) to obscure the clear meaning of what is currently the most common use of the phrase "death worship" in the English language (and to toss around rather random accusations of "racism" and "imperialism" while you're at it). AnonMoos 14:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear comrade, where are these accusations of racism and imperialism that u keep mentioning? u are either projecting or hallucinating, as i have made no such accusations with regard to this page whatsoever. Get a grip! 62.25.106.209 14:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"This comment on 'Western' Orientalism is reflected in some contemporary anti-Islamic propoganda". Too bad you can't even spell propaganda right! AnonMoos 14:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But you can still understand the word - although your understanding is limited to a banal conception. anti-islamic western orientalism doesn't have to be racist or imperialistic. it could just be christian supremacism. stop making ridiculous excuses and false allegations to back up your POV pushing!!! 62.25.106.209 12:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the funny thing with people like you -- you feel free to criticise Western culture rather harshly, but any westerner who dares to depart from a strict 100% agenda of rigid cultural relativism is suddenly an "Orientalist" or "Christian supremacist". Since your edits are not made with the intention of improving Wikipedia (but rather with the intention of obscuring and obfuscating the most commonly used current meaning of "death worship" today), therefore I consider them to be vandalism, and will deal with them accordingly. AnonMoos 16:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not made any such criticism of "western culture" and I don't find your insinuations and insults funny at all. It is you who is the vandal and you are also pushing POV. I suppose that is the end of this discussion. I am very sorry that you will not engage in civilised debate on these issues. 62.25.106.209 09:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad that you're a liar, since this passage of your purple prose is "Criticism of Western culture" by anyone's reckoning:

"Europe - Like Islam, Christianity is a monotheistic religeon[sic] and so God is a god of both life and death. However, there is are [sic] commentators on European Christianity who note that it is charecterized[sic] by a worship of death and the unseen."

I would find it possible to work with you if you had a sincere desire to improve Wikipedia. Too bad that you don't. 14:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I was refering to some debates eg http://www.sacred-texts.com/lgbt/lca/lca11.htm . I think we need arbritration on this as we are obviously not going to reach any agreement on our own! 62.25.106.209 14:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

I've noticed that the edit war on Death worship has been going on for almost a month. Could you briefly explain the situation? I'm willing to help mediate, but I need to understand the problem. —Viriditas | Talk 11:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's really fairly simple -- anonymous IP user 195.92.40.49 a.k.a. 62.25.106.209 seems to be dragging in material of questionable relevance to deliberately and intentionally obscure and obfuscate what is the most common currently-used meaning of this phrase (because this meaning, no matter how prominent it is in current usage, offends his personal anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist convictions). Mr. Anonymous IP succeeded in persuading me of his bad faith when he did an abrupt 180° U-turn from dragging in questionably-relevant material about Sufi-Wahhabi controversies on the veneration of Muslim holy men to all of a sudden dragging in questionably-relevant material about ancient polytheistic mythologies. The only thing that these two subject matter areas have in common is that they both can serve Mr. Anonymous IP's desires to obfuscate and obscure. When Mr. Anonymous IP stops trying to demote all discussion of the most commonly-encountered meaning of the phrase from the first paragraph of the article to a parenthetical clause (expressing his personal views on condeming colonialism and imperialism) in the last paragraph of the article, then I'm sure we'll be able to productively cooperate on making the article better... AnonMoos 17:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for getting back to me so fast. Would it be possible for you to add references to the disputed content? I'm only trying to offer solutions that might end the edit war. —Viriditas | Talk 21:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was already a reference in the article before either I or Mr. Anonymous IP started editing it, and it's still there. Plenty more (and probably better ones) could be rather easily turned up with a very simple Google search. The dispute is not about references, but about whether the currently most promininent and most commonly encountered meaning of the word should be deliberately downplayed because it offends Mr. Anonymous IP's feelings about alleged imperialism and colonialism. AnonMoos 23:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't clear. My point is, if the text includes inline references (see WP:CITE) other contributors can get involved without having to ask you to explain the problem. As it stands, the conflict is less than clear, and basically amounts to an edit war, instead of an anon editor removing cited sources. Does that make sense? —Viriditas | Talk 23:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want me to add references, then I'll add references, but I really don't understand how that's supposed to settle the dispute, since the dispute has not been about references... AnonMoos 03:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citing sources will solve the dispute to the best of our ability. That is to say, anything unreferenced is fair game for removal. What we are left with is the closest approximation to the facts as we are best able to state them. This leaves no room for edit wars, and anyone engaging in said edit wars will either find themselves blocked, or in this case, page protection can be imposed, preventing anonymous IP's from editing. You see? —Viriditas | Talk 03:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to mediation

Hi, I am the Anon editer of Death Worship. This page is really AnonMoos's original research - based on one article where suicide bombers are referred to as death worshippers. He wants to make a differentiation between other forms of death worship and death as a deity. As i said - it's just original research and not very good research at that because s/he has not much knowledge of the subject, ie worship of death in hindu islam as well as in other cultures. Thanks for your offer to mediate. I will try to co-operate. 62.25.106.209 12:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horse-puckey. That's nonsense, and you should know that it's nonsense. I didn't "base" anything on the external link at the bottom of the article (which I didn't even read until you were already well-launched into your vandalism campaign), but rather on common knowledge (from reading many separate commentaries from numerous sources since 2000) of what the most prominent current rhetorical meaning of the phrase is. The external link at the bottom of the article is actually a pretty lousy example of the currently most prominent rhetorical meaning, and I'm confident in my ability to find plenty of better examples based on fairly simple web-searching (which I intend to do soon). Furthermore, your relegation of the most prominent current rhetorical meaning of the phrase to a parenthetical clause at the bottom of the article about "Orientalism" (which in context is a Saidian code-word meaning that non-westerners are free to criticize western societies, but westerners are forbidden from criticizing non-western societies because of the putative shame they should be feeling about perceived "colonialism" and "imperialism") is far more an expression of your personal views than anything in my preferred edit of the article is an expression of my personal views.

Currently, the needle of my Faith-o-meter is pegged to the pin on the "Bad" side in your case, but you could move the needle back towards the "Good" side -- if you could just offer some semi-plausible sounding explanation of why you made your abrupt 180-degree hairpin turn from first dragging in rather irrelevant material about Sufi vs. Wahhabi controversies about offering veneration to Muslim holy men to then all of a sudden dragging in rather irrelevant material about ancient polytheistic mythologies. The only explanation of your strangely-changing behavior which seems at all plausible to me is that anything would serve your desire to obscure and obfuscate the most prominent current rhetorical meaning of the phrase -- but if you have any alternative hypothesis to offer, I'm open to listening to it... AnonMoos 15:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question for 62.25.106.209

Are you interested in creating an account? It would make this discussion much easier. The edit history is difficult to follow with all those IP's. —Viriditas | Talk 14:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i cannot accept cookies on this machine therefore i cannot register. As for AnonMoos allegations, there has been no "180-degree hairpin turn" and nothing was "dragged in". The real issue and context of worshippers of death requires coverage of the intersection of the monotheism of islam and polytheism of hinduism - especially as represented in the membership of the thugee cult. As I have mentioned again and again it is your limited knowledge on this subject coupled with your political POV that is the problem, not my edits. 62.25.106.209 09:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course, referring to AnonMoos, not me, but let me first recommend as an informal mediator, that you both stop attacking each other. Let's start on a point by point basis, and tackle each topic. Perhaps the both of you can agree to meet halfway? First off, I can tell you right now, that I have the right to remove any and all unreferenced material. I suggest you start adding references, because I will begin removing content if this conflict does not resolve itself. —Viriditas | Talk 10:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course I was referring to AnonMoos - and yes i'm willing to be civil, assume good faith etc as long as AnonMoos reciprocates. I agree with you as far as references go and I would support you in removing unreferenced material. 62.25.106.209 12:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be interested in creating a temporary version of the article as a sub-page? Talk:Death worship/temp would be a good start. —Viriditas | Talk 12:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will try and get something together and then add it in the next couple of days. If anyone else wants to make a start then that would be fine by me. 62.25.106.209 15:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]