Talk:Toleration

message: can we use this photo in the article?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Religious_toleration_in_Palestine.jpg
--Mohammad Hijjawi (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: We COULD use the photo, but what does it contribute to readers' understanding of the topic?  It would need some text to explain this. Pete unseth (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  photo usage 

message: One small issue: the "tolerance" link on the page "Volumetric flask" leads to this page, but this page has nothing to do with chemistry or volumetric flasks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willy1106 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tolerance of Volumetric flask leads to this article 

message: This reads, to me at least, like an essay promoting the concept of toleration.  Now people being tolerant is fine by me, but the encyclopedia article on the subject should describe it factually and neutrally, attribute statements where appropriate, and so on, not be a persuasive essay trying to convince people it is a virtue and refute those who claim otherwise. --Delirium 08:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  doesn't seem like an encyclopedia article to me 

message: I've gone ahead and merged this page with "Tolerance," which included a more objective account of toleration.  I've modified the original article from "tolerance" a bit, and kept the list of references from this article however, which will be a very useful addition to article I've moved from "tolerance."
"Toleration" is, I think the more usual heading under which these issues are discussed, and it really doesn't make sense to have two articles on the same subject, when one is much more of an encyclopedic article and the other is an (interesting) essay that isn't really in the format a Wikipedia article need to be in.  Hopefully these changes will be acceptable to most. ThaddeusFrye 23:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged 

message: An external link to a proposal for a park and monument has occasionally been added to and deleted from this page (here is one of the project's several webpages: http://www.tolerancepark.org/ ).  I see that there has also been some discussion at the Governor's Island talk page about whether this proposal has enough backing to warrant mentioning in that article (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Governors_Island ).  Honestly, I'm not sure whether to leave this link in or not.  The web pages linked to do have a pretty amateur appearance, and seem somewhat disorganized.  
On the Governor's Island talk page, some have argued that these links promote a "movement" with very little existence outside of Wikipedia and a few web pages.  For now however I've given the link the benefit of the doubt (the page I link to implies that the proposal has received support from some prominent individuals, including Hillary Clinton).  So instead of deleting this link, I've pointed it to the clearest introduction I could find to the proposal, and clarified the text of the external link itself.  If this external reference is indeed significant enough to keep however, a Wikipedia article regarding the sponsoring organization and its membership and officers, would seem to be a good idea.  If the organization and movement isn't encyclopedic enough to be in Wikipedia, then I don't think that a link to its webpage should be included either. ThaddeusFrye 01:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  external link to toleration park? 

message: I can't help but think that tolerance is often used by the politically correct as a form of double speak. I'm not sure if this idea could be tied into the tolerant of the intolerant section. It is my view that the people who claim to be the most tolerant are some of the most intolerant. Some people might find the article interesting:
Do we have the right to hate
To me hate is an emotion which we feel when we are not content. People that are always content are easy to control. The politically correct try to control our mind and police our thoughts by persecuting people who they don't agree with in an attempt to control language in a 1984 news speak like fashion. Let us not be fooled in mistaking the PC thought police for the tolerant. 
04:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? I just don't realise it. Doublespeak is not tolerated. I still don't get it why Tolerance is politically correct. Joe9320 of the Wikipedia Party | Contact Assembly of Jimbo Wales 06:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double Speak 

message: Tolerance has nothing to do with race, efnic, religeon, belief. But rather it is about repressing rage.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.203.166 (talk) 09:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Article Is Misleading 

message: Rich Farmbrough, 03:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: In Our Time

message: Why was this correction of this page removed is it because the person who deleted it is intolerant?  See below...
In general usage, tolerance is the ability to accept the existence of something while it is in error.  
In Statistics or Mathematics the degree to which the error is an indication the level of tolerance. Tolerance is many times confused with other similar terms.    
Mercy and Justice are the root of the confusion over tolerance. Those who are intolerant are usually do not feel they need any mercy. While those who decide to tolerate an error are feeling as though they are merciful. Justice refers to giving what is due because of the correctness of a statement. Some know that 2+2=4 while some may state it is 4.001. There may be a level of toleration to the error of .001, however that is not correct but it is accepted so as to not hurt the feelings of those in error.
-The reason given by Saddhihyama Budda is because it is too scientific and not philisophical.  WHAT!!!  How intolerant of other people.   The truth is that he does not agree with the absolutes of philosophy which is why he is intolerant.  Sounds like hypocrisy to me.  What's your opinion on the talk page, at least???  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.195.38 (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your addition is original research. The main subject of this article is the development of tolerance regarding religious belief. Scientifically speaking no religion can be regarded more true than other religions, so there are no absolutes involved here, only differences in personal belief. Also could you please adjust your tone a bit, discuss the subject and refrain from personal attacks. Thanks. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 173.65.195.38 Tolerance limits are defined here [], but are a scientific term.  This isn't the subject of the article. Tiiischiii (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Saddihama I have further revised "common usage" definition. Tiiischiii (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Intolerance on the page of Tolerance

message: Hi there! As some guys wrote earlier: This Toleration page has problems. Some sort of section for criticism is needed. My English is not good enough so I can't do it. But read this, Slavoj Zizek has an excellent critic:
The Culturalization of Politics.
Why are today so many problems perceived as problems of intolerance, not as problems of inequality, exploitation, injustice? Why is the proposed remedy tolerance, not emancipation, political struggle, even armed struggle? The immediate answer is the liberal multiculturalist's basic ideological operation: the "culturalization of politics" - political differences, differences conditioned by political inequality, economic exploitation, etc., are naturalized/neutralized into "cultural" differences, different "ways of life," which are something given, something that cannot be overcome, but merely "tolerated." To this, of course, one should answer in Benjaminian terms: from culturalization of politics to politicization of culture. The cause of this culturalization is the retreat, failure, of direct political solutions (Welfare State, socialist projects, etc.).''
www.lacan.com/zizek-inquiry.html
Please, can some one add a critic section?! Tanks!
--Utomsig (talk) 02:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not more intolerance? 

message: The article contains much awkward phrasing, is practically incoherent in places, and appears to contain some irrelevant, unsourced and possibly non-notable material (who is McNair?). It also significantly overlaps a better-written article on Religious Toleration. I will be back to edit and will post specific changes here before making them. Jonathanwallace (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I second this. Article is a mess. Lots of original research and biases. JPTINS3000 (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Concerned

message: I popose merging this article with Religious toleration. All examples given in the existing article are of religious toleration and I have added edits to the other article covering each of the writers and incidents mentioned here. I propose to expand the finished article with some coverage of toleration of homosexuality, political groupings and other non-religious instances. The final result will be entitled "Toleration" and "Religious toleration" will redirect to it. I will boldly implement these changes within a few weeks if no-one objects.Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge completed. For the discussions from the merged page, see Talk:Religious toleration. --Deryck C. 20:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: "There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower." (Surah 2:256) <- Ref: http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/002.qmt.html
"Say: O disbelievers!
I worship not that which ye worship; 
Nor worship ye that which I worship. 
And I shall not worship that which ye worship. 
Nor will ye worship that which I worship. 
You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion." 
(Surah 109:1-16)
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/109.qmt.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.11.76.136 (talk) 05:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Qur'an related views on religious toleration 

message: The first two "in antiquity" examples (Cyrus and Alexandria) do not seem to be in agreement with the definition at the start of the article because there was no "disapproval" of Jews in either case (at least, none is mentioned and I don't see a reason why there would have been any). More like cases of "live and let live" than toleration. 
The definition seems to imply that you must first have a bias against, or other issue with, someone before you can be considered "tolerant" towards them. For example after prior religious intolerance in the way illustrated by the third example (where it would be nice to know to what extent the Christians also became more tolerant, or not). AlexFekken (talk) 03:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  In antiquity 

message: In Moby-Dick, or, The Whale, chapter 17, the main character clarifies his view on other religions:
Now, as I before hinted, I have no objection to any person's religion, be it what it may, so long as that person does not kill or insult any other person, because that other person don't believe it also. But when a man's religion becomes really frantic; when it is a positive torment to him; and, in fine, makes this earth of ours an uncomfortable inn to lodge in; then I think it high time to take that individual aside and argue the point with him.  (source: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2701/2701-h/2701-h.htm)
Do you think could be added to this page? In what section?
Logos-Aletheia (talk) 08:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Herman Melville's stance on religious toleration 

message: Inclusion of the below text in the Islam section of the Article in unwarranted.
However, in Iraq the ISIS has been mass slaughtering people under the name of religion. They have been targeting the minority community of Yazidis where they have been killed on a massive scale because they are considered to be evil worshippers according to the Orthodox Muslims. The Yazidis have been pushed out of houses and into the treacherous Sinjar mountains where basic necessities such as food and water have been scarce. Those that have refused to move from their houses are being viciously hunted down by Islamic State.|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/Who-are-Yazidis-and-why-are-they-being-killed-by-Islamic-State/articleshow/40316704.cms|
Stories of brutality and complete anarchy are almost commonplace. Hundreds of women and young girls have been taken away as brides for jihadis and given the choice of conversion or death, according to the refugees, several of whom said they had received phone calls from their daughters or sisters before their cellphone batteries and credit ran out. Exactly how many women have been caught up in the dragnet is unclear. The Iraqi government claims that 1,500 women have been detained and 500 men executed in the brutal blitz by the extremists through the Sinjar area, where a majority of the residents are Yazidis but some are Christian, Shiite or Sunni Arab.http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/in-iraq-islamic-state-fighters-capturing-yazidi-women-to-take-them-as-wives/2014/08/16/3a349cd6-24d2-11e4-958c-268a320a60ce_story.html</blockquote>
It is clear that the intolerance of the terrorist group IS, referred to by many as the non-Islamic non-State (NINS) is not representative of the concept of tolerance in Islam. The group and its members have been denounced by all Muslim authorities as not-Muslims and their actions not associated with Islam at all, as such there's no need to include the view/actions of an outcast Muslim extremist group to suggest a position of Islam.—Sadat (Masssly)❤Talk☮C☺Email☯ 23:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, because they are totally non-representative. Almost like including Nuwaubian Nation and their habits under Islam.--Inayity (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of Intolerance of Muslim extremist group ISIS 

message: Nourishing and sustaining? That is going to need some elaboration, which probably wouldn't fit in the intro anyways. 64.223.125.218 (talk) 00:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Nourish, Sustain, Preserve 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Toleration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120714094231/http://booking-help.org/book_338_glava_314_Edict_of_Versailles_(1787).html to http://booking-help.org/book_338_glava_314_Edict_of_Versailles_%281787%29.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060107013835/http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_2/voltaire.html to http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_2/voltaire.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article remains in a pitiful state of disarray, startting for the definition. It seems that this wall of text of the article is abandoned. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article class demoted  

message: I have just finished a reworking of History of Christian thought on persecution and tolerance.  It's not perfect, but it's better, and I invite anyone interested to take a look and participate there as well. Keep in mind the main context of that one is Christian thought. It connects to this article and I would like to see if I can improve this one as well, so I am going to start with the lead and its definitions. If anyone has a problem with any of it please just say so, and between us I am sure we will come up with a compromise/accomodation of some sort. Right now I am going to "Be Bold!' and just start.Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  I will begin 

message: * The Impossibility of Pure Toleration in a Just Empire – The Ottoman Case (1545–1566) D. Burcu Eği̇lmez muse.jhu.edu PDF
Bookku (talk) 03:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful references 

message: there should be a subtitle of the philosopher voltaire, father of tolerance in the illustration,
tolerance is well represented in the illustration Hastengeims (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  More