- Category:Islamophobia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
- Category:Islamophobia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
(This discussion applies to all the relevant sub categories too)
The obvious consensus of the relevant discussion was to keep all the categories. A number of users provided strong rationales for keeping the categories, inter alia demonstrating that is is the scholarly term and the term widely used by governments and international bodies (e.g., the UN, the EU, the Council of Europe), as also established by our main article on Islamophobia which states in its opening sentence that "Islamophobia describes prejudice or racism against, hatred or irrational fear of Muslims" (the term also has a template, that was decided to be kept in a previous discussion, and much more). The users who wanted to delete the categories, a minority, only cited WP:IDONTLIKEIT, "it's right to hate Islam" and other inadmissible, non-policy based and politically extreme "arguments", and without citing any sources (see also this discussion).
The consensus of the discussion to keep the categories is in line with the already established consensus on how to treat the subject in its main article, Islamophobia.
In any case, even if counting the "it is right to hate Islam" guys, there was no consensus to delete the categories. The only acceptable, policy-based outcomes would be either keep or no consensus, not delete.
Moving categories for hatred and prejudice against Muslims to "opposition to Islam", while we at the same time have categories for Antisemitism, conveys a politically extreme and Islamophobic message, as pointed out recently in media coverage on Wikipedia.
Unless the categories are all restored per the consensus in the relevant discussion, we will now have no choice but moving the Antisemitism categories to Opposition to Judaism to retain a consistent category hierarchy and avoid racist double standard (Category:Islamophobia in Israel was deleted (against consensus), while Category:Antisemitism in Palestine is still there, a striking and POV double standard). JonFlaune (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse and salt For the record, again, Category:Islamophobia has been deleted already 8 times (log) and it keeps getting re-created even after three succesful CfD-nominations (1, 2 and 3) to not have it. Thus, I believe the page should already be salted. Yes, in the latest one many also voiced to keep them, as many did voice not to keep them. Deletion nominations are not a direct vote, even though 13 did propose to delete it and 8 voted to keep it (against what you called a consensus). But it was the arguments that did weigh in, and the admin who closed it offered a very good rationale for deleting it. You can't just say that there was an obvious consensus while there never was. Simply, it can't just be recreated again and again and claimed that there is a consensus for it, while it's pretty clear there is no such consensus at all. --Pudeo' 22:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Closer's comment. I've given a rationale for the close, and I'll let that speak for me. I would like to say that despite Jonflaune's claim, no one in the discussion made an "it's right to hate Islam" claim. That's a staggeringly inflammatory statement to make about a discussion where pretty much everyone kept their heads. I hope this one fits that description too.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, what do you call "It is possible to criticise Islam for what it actually does to other people and religions worldwide" and other nonsencial politically extreme, non-policy based delete "votes" (although it's of course not a vote)? For every honest editor, it's overwhelmingly clear that the outcome of the discussion, per policy, was a consensus to keep the categories. In these discussions, only policy-based arguments count. Demonstrating that it is the established scholarly term, used by international bodies (the EU, the Council of Europe, the UN) etc etc. counts. Unsourced WP:IDONTLIKEIT from a group of POV warriors pushing WP:FRINGE views, ignoring scholarly discourse, does not count. In any case, there was no consensus to delete the categories. Even if counting the non-policy based arguments, there was still no such consensus, and policy would dictate a "non consensus" close, not a deletion, and the categories would be retained as no consensus to delete them. In a recent discussion, you demonstrated having a strong POV on this issue and were hence not an impartial party to the discussion. Closing a discussion on an issue on which you hold a strong POV, and using that position to enforce the opposite result of the consensus, is unacceptable. JonFlaune (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Where have I demonstrated a strong POV on this issue?--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- First off, you failed to answer my question. When you have done so, I'll answer yours. My question was: "what do you call "It is possible to criticise Islam for what it actually does to other people and religions worldwide""? JonFlaune (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- An argument? That comes far short of "it's okay to hate Islam." I think a reasonable claim of that sort could be made about Christianity, Judaism, or any other religion. In any event, if that's the worst anti-Islam statement in a discussion, that's a pretty hate-free discussion about Islam.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think so, I guess there is no need to elaborate on why you are not an impartial party to the discussion. Again I notice that you you take the personal and completely unsourced (and WP:FRINGE) opinion of a Wikipedia user at face value, instead of considering sourced, rational and policy-based arguments (such as: Which term is used in scholarly discourse? Which term is used by the mainstream media? Which term is used by international organisations? How does Wikipedia's own main article on the subject, which is the result of much discussion, treat the subject?). Btw., at least two users have pointed out that the particular statement is an extreme statement that means "it is right to hate Islam", and it's a prime of example of the utterly worthless WP:IDONTLIKEIT that should be discarded completely. JonFlaune (talk) 02:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You should note that the closery perhaps was Mike's first Islam-related edit in his Wikipedia editing history (he's not involved in any Islam debates). Claiming "a strong POV" with his very reasonable closing message is quite incomprehensible, and your tone is getting somewhat rude. With all due respect, perhaps you should cool off a bit. But I'll response to your question: that's called criticism of religion, obviously he meant legitimate criticism of Islam. You shouldn't overinterpret. --Pudeo' 01:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We are here discussing the against-consensus deletion of the category for Islamophobia which according to its main article "describes prejudice or racism[1] against, hatred or irrational fear of Muslims", and has nothing to do with criticism of religion. The user in question has deleted a hierarchy of categories that took hours to build, against a clear consensus and against policy. JonFlaune (talk) 01:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, okay, if this is going to center on whether I have a bias that I don't think I've demonstrated, let's look at the record. I've closed several thousand CfD discussions over the past six or seven years. Since I tend to close controversial discussions, some of them have been about Islam. Here's what I've done in all Islam-related CfD discussions I've participated in. It looks to me to be all over the map, but your mileage may vary. Since these categories have come up probably a dozen times in some form or other, you can look through them and find what you want to find, I guess.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, Jon, I don't see that in recent discussions Mike has demonstrated a bias that would taint the close. I disagree with the close, but I don't think it was biased - I just think it misread the consensus. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically he just ignored all the policy-based rationales and the main article on the subject, while taking the unsourced, fringe assertions of the "It is possible to criticise Islam for what it actually does to other people and religions worldwide" guys at face value, which in itself indicates a strong bias. Moreover, anyone reading the discussion can see that, even if accepting the non-policy based "arguments" as valid arguments (which they are not), there is no consensus whatsoever to delete the category. Hence the result would be no consensus (and no deletion of the categories). Scholars, mainstream media and policymakers don't discuss whether Islamophobia is a legitimate term. It is the long-standing established scholarly and accepted term for hatred against muslims, recognized as an equivalent term to Antisemitism by all of polite society by the 1990s. Only the politically extreme reject the term. Describing it as "opposition to Islam" is the WP:FRINGE position. Wikipedia cannot support the fringe position. JonFlaune (talk) 01:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. First, well-deserved pat on the back to Mike for his lengthy and thoughtful closing comment. It's very much appreciated. However, I don't think that he did due diligence in weeding out non-policy-compliant arguments and non-arguments (most of the delete !votes simply asserted that the term was non-neutral, while keep !votes pointed out that it is the common term used by scholars and major world bodies; we also got several users making the tired old "hatred of Islam is rational, therefore it is not a phobia" comments that we also see with homophobia and that ignore established usage for the sake of a POV; and a number of other useless arguments). I'm also iffy about the treatment of the redundancy issue. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you point out a comment in the CfD discussion which claimed that hating Islam is okay or defended it? Please, it's very unhealthy for this discussion to make offensive strawman statements. You shouldn't discredit views that you don't agree with simply as "non-arguments", instead you should have countered them. --Pudeo' 00:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Among others, "Opposition to Islam is not necessarily the same as Islamophobia. It is possible to criticise Islam for what it actually does to other people and religions worldwide truthfully...labelling statements of fact as 'Islamophobia' indicates that the term has no legitimate foundation" and "The term is a recent creation of certain groups meant to push the position that opposition to Islam is inherently irrational and maybe even a sign of mental disturbance" –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse and salt It was deleted many times.Its a POV fork from Anti-Islam categories.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 05:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse and salt. While WP:CCC is an important principle which dictates that we don't censure users for bringing up again an earlier decision for reconsideration, and that also means recreating previously deleted articles, categories and templates can be done, either because the issues that caused them to be deleted have been ostensively remedied, or, consensus has in fact changed, this principle can also be abused. And this seems to be what is happening in the case of these categories which are programmatically recreated following each consensus to delete. This gaming of the system needs to be addressed, and I agree that now is the time to make a decision to salt these category names. __meco (talk) 07:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As you are very well aware, the consensus was to keep the categories. There was no consensus to delete the categories. I agree it's time to finally close this issue as the categories were decided to be kept, and the persistent attempts to delete them are just disruptive and damaging Wikipedia. It is the well established scholarly term used by all relevant international organisations and only rejected by the likes of Breivik, and the discussion decided to keep the categories, so they are to be kept per the consensus of the discussion. (I also noticed that you nominated the template for deletion again, despite the fact that it was apparently already kept in a recent discussion). JonFlaune (talk) 09:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse thoughtful close. There is indeed a consensus to delete present in the discussion. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are 8 strong keep votes and 0 valid delete votes, only unsourced WP:IDONTLIKEIT ("it is right to hate Islam"). The consensus is to keep the categories. We don't count worthless unsourced fringe views/IDONTLIKEIT from POV warriors, as opposed to policy-based arguments that demonstrate which term is the scholarly and predominant and widely accepted term. JonFlaune (talk) 10:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't seriously claim that every vote to keep it was valid (even per someone else votes) and every one against it was invalid. That's just contemptuous. And then again, if you go on that road, is WP:ILIKEIT a better reason? --Pudeo' 13:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree that the close was kind of arguably in accordance with the consensus, it strikes me that Category:Islamophobia is an excellent candidate for a category soft redirect to Category:Anti-Islam. If it's been re-created seven times as the discussion implies, then leaving it as a redlink is just asking to have the whole discussion again in another few weeks. (The closer should read this as "weak endorse but redirect as a separate and subsequent editorial action.")—S Marshall T/C 11:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The category had been a soft redirect to Anti-Islam earlier to prevent recreation atleast once before, but it was created again anyway. It didn't have adequate protection and perhaps wasn't watchlisted by someone eager to revert it at the time, and then all those articles and subcategories were added and it was again too late by then. --Pudeo' 13:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We realise that you strongly endorse the decision, Pudeo; your enthusiasm is commendable and your many comments in this DRV will doubtless be helpful to the closer.
Salting is a blunt instrument. There are times when it's appropriate, such as when dealing with persistent bad faith re-creation, but careful consideration is necessary before using it to resolve differences of opinion between good faith editors. We should examine alternatives before we go ahead with page protection. One of those alternatives is a category soft redirect, which may well stick this time.—S Marshall T/C 15:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. However, eight category page deletes and three succesful CfDs is quite extraordinary, isn't it? That's something to consider. For the last time the category was re-created only 14 days after since it was last deleted. It seems deletes and soft redirect (it indeed was a soft redirect before the last delete) haven't helped. --Pudeo' 15:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's nowhere near as clear-cut as that, I'm afraid. Eight page deletes means relatively little. We see a lot of speedy deletions here at DRV; a speedy deletion just means one individual sysop made a judgment. With all due respect for Mike Selinker's clear and well-thought-out closing statement, he is wrong to give weight to the number of speedy deletions. A speedy says nothing at all about what the community thinks; it's of no help in judging consensus.
Three CfDs has a great deal more weight, but on examining the previous CfDs I note that they're far from conclusive and there were more than three of them anyway. The first CfD here was (correctly) closed as "no consensus". The second CfD here was closed as "rename", and so was the third one here. The fourth one is the one that we're considering. In fact, this most recent discussion is the only time there's be a consensus to delete this category. In the circumstances, and given the good faith disagreement that still prevails here, salting (which is fundamentally an anti-vandal tool) is simply inappropriate. While I sort of semi-endorse the deletion, I urge the closer to find a less unilateral solution than salting here.—S Marshall T/C 16:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But speedy deletes were based on those two rename CfD results. While I accept your point that the number of speedy deletes is not the most decisive thing (8 is alot anyhow), the problem however has been that someone recreating that category has been claiming a consensus for it. But mind you, the rename result of the previous CfDs essentially means the same as delete now. That is, because we already have the categories Category:Anti-Islam and Category:Opposition to Islam, naturally the result can't be rename anymore because those more ideal categories already exist. It was either returning to earlier situation of not having this category (based on rename) or decide to recreate the category again despite having another category on the same issue that was renamed. --Pudeo' 17:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I also support the soft redirect. If I'd thought it deserved to be salted, I would have salted it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Soft redirect is not bad option but maybe it should be fully protected to prevent recreation?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay by me. But if you guys want to salt it, go ahead.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse and salt The arguments were balanced and not the one sided slam dunk keep consensus some may have wished for but the fact these categories have been repeatedly deleted and recreated pushes towards permanent deletion. I would likely have closed the discussion the same way, but without such an eloquent closure summary. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to keep I really don't care for the Islomophbia/Homophobia terms, as they are loaded language. But the keeps had clearly stronger arguments (commonly used in scholoarly circles, we have an article on the word), where the deletes are more worried about the loaded nature of the term. I don't see how that's a policy-based reason to delete, let alone one that is stronger than the keep arguments. The parallels to antisemitism are also strong and not really overcome by the delete votes. I do think the closer took a really good shot at this, but I really don't think the policy-based arguments were weighed appropriately. Hobit (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn as absurd and a violation of Not Censored, which takes precedence as a principle. There's a standard word, universally used. "Islamopobia" is the contemporary politico-religious opposition to the asserted political role of the religious movement. It's in my personal evaluation as disgusting and dangerous as any other religiously based political hatred. However, it exists, and calling it a more polite and indirect name won't make it go away. WP describes the world as it is, and the ugly parts are ugly. Trying to use euphemisms is censorship of an insidious sort. Not censored means, among other things, that we name things for what they are called. There is a term to describe this sort of thing: Political correctness, a term originally used by some vaguely Maoist-influenced parts of the Left in a positive sense, but now widely understood in its true negative sense to be the attempt at unreasoning and intellectually dishonest censorship of one's opponents. I don't think WP is free from it. It shows up most at the things people fear, but are ashamed to admit it. The people who use it normally don't admit that it applies to themselves, but argue that it represents balance and even-handedness and freedom from prejudice. They have it backwards, and they are an obstacle to honest discourse. I'm aware that some out-and-out bigots may also use the term, but anyone can use even objective language to a bad purpose. I know what I'm saying is not likely to very popular, but all the more reason it is necessary to say it. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm surprised to read this diatribe coming from this specific direction. Are you sure you are presenting an argument for DRV and not your belated opinion for a CFD that you missed? I would expect a vastly experienced CFD contributor like DGG to at least address the issue of whether the closing admin has acted in error. But that seems not to be even a tangential focus in the above post.__meco (talk) 08:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that this is not very relevant in terms of DRV, but Islamophobia is not the only term for these issues. It is definitely a notable term and of course warrants an own article. But it's not the only name. Category:Anti-Islam exists, and if you will look at Google Scholar search 2720 results for "anti-Islam" and 379 results for "anti-Islamic sentiment". Anti-Islamic sentiment does also have a negative connotation much like Islamophobia, albeit less controversial. It's not censorship, in any case. How many categories do we need on the subject? --Pudeo' 10:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This comes up occasionally: what kind of comment is in scope for DRV, and what kind of comment is outside it? On the one hand, there's a convention that DRV is not AfD round 2. But on the other hand, that convention is sometimes suspended (tacitly or explicitly) because in order to perform its function properly, DRV needs to be more than just a venue to oversee procedure. A lot of DRVs are about difficult and marginal cases, or where there's been some perceived need to disregard procedure, or where an editor suggests that procedure should have been disregarded. And in a few extreme cases, there have been occasions when a DRV has overturned a XfD on the basis that the XfD was simply wrong. So as to allow for this, our normal custom and practice is to allow DRV particpants very wide latitude to comment. The regular closers here can all be trusted to disregard anything that's genuinely irrelevant.
DGG is not obliged to discuss whether Mike Selinker made a mistake. (In fact, in some ways it's good that he didn't. The closer of this discussion has probably received more than enough input to reach a finding on that point, and we can probably move on.) In short, regardless of whether or not DGG's comment has merit, I'm positive it's within scope.—S Marshall T/C 12:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course my implication is that he made a mistake because he should have disregarded views that were attributable to prejudice, or incompatible with Not Censored. Presumably he didn't find them such, and that was an error. Others have made the same error in this sort of dispute. I do not blame him for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 02:17, August 14, 2012 (UTC)
- Endorse and Salt it is clear that we should name the category with a more neutral title. While some may try to distinguish "Islamaphobia" from "oppostion to Islam", the reality is the former is an attack term, and its use shows that the user is engaged in polemics, not anything substantial about the accused. The fact that we are called "Islamaphobic" for taking this action just shows that the term itself has little meaning beyond "we will shame you into doing exactly what we want you to do."John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse and salt - User:Timrollpickering pretty much said what I was going to say. Though I will add that if someone else accuses anyone else of prejudice/"bias" simply for disagreeing with their assertion, I think I'm going to start an AN/I discussion to consider that individual's continued ability to edit on Wikipedia. (What I have read in this discussion has clearly more than annoyed me, so I'll recuse myself from doing the actual blocking.) We are a collegiate project. And that is definitely NOT collegiate. There is (unfortunately) genuine/real prejudice in the world (of many kinds), which real people have to deal with on a regular basis. To call out prejudice/bias when you have a difference of opinion, or you feel you aren't getting your way, is just wrong. There is just no word strong enough to express how wrong it is. - jc37 23:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus For a change I find myself agreeing with DGG and Hobit. This was deleted on the incorrect assumption that the word Islamophobia carries an implicit POV. The obvious parallel, as has already been pointed out is Homophobia, for which we have a well-developed Category:Homophobia. Although the word may be loaded when used in certain contexts, it is the common scholarly term used in discussing anti-Islam sentiment. ThemFromSpace 19:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, your argument misses the point. We're not discussing the article Islamophobia, we're discussing a category hierarchy that has been hugely abused by POV warriors. __meco (talk) 06:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The only POV warriors are the ones trying to portray Islamophobia (the universally accepted term, in polite society including scholarship and mainstream media, for racism and hatred against Muslims) as "legitimate cricism of Islam," as reported by the Norwegian newspaper Klassekampen recently[1]. According to the article, "people sharing Anders Behring Breivik's views are waging an ideological war to promote their ideas on [the English] Wikipedia," trying to portray Islamophobia as "legitimate cricism of Islam." The President of Wikimedia Norway is interviewed, stating "there is no lack of people who share Breivik's opinions among users on Wikipedia." JonFlaune (talk) 08:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn It does not appear a consensus was reached. In one sense its odd to claim a category is POV, as the purpose of a category is to categorize (eg., someone authoritatively categorizes this (topic) as Islamophobia). The neutrally proper inquiry is whether it is a way of categorizing things that is valid with reference to sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. There is a difference between personal opinions of Wikipedia users that are unsupported by sources (such as when one user wanted to rename the template for Islamophobia to "Islamorealism"(!), without reference to anything but his own opinion), and the opinion held by sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is based on reliable sources, not on the personal opinions of Wikipedia editors. If sources use a term, then we use that term. In this case, Islamophobia is (as amply documented and established) the universally accepted term among the sources upon which Wikipedia is built, whether scholarly sources, mainstream media sources or official (EU, UN etc.) sources. Even the Jerusalem Post uses the term[2] and the Anti-Defamation League considers itself opposed to Islamophobia. It is well established in scholarship and other sources that the term is really only rejected by the far-right fringe. Those wanting to delete the term in various contexts have not presented any sources whatsoever supporting their assertions, only WP:IDONTLIKEIT, "rename to Islamorealism" and similar "arguments.". JonFlaune (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and keep as it's the established term and there is obviously a need for such a category or it wouldn't have been recreated. The discussion should have been closed as "no consensus". Also having articles about islamophobia (racism against Muslims) in Category:Anti-Islam is not good for anyone as it creates a mix-up of criticism of the religion and hate against people with Muslim ethno-religious background (even if it might be an overlap). As mentioned in the discussion Category:Islamophobia corresponds to Category:Antisemitism. So would you support merging Category:Antisemitism into Category:Anti-Judaism? // Liftarn (talk)
- Overturn to keep And do the equivalent of salting when it comes to keeping. Having said that, I believe Mike Selinker's closing argument was quite reasonable, aside from noting that "phobia" has something to do with irrational fear (word roots don't translate automatically into word meanings). However (and understandably: reviewing this requires quite an effort) it doesn't address som facts that are absolutely central to the matter. It was mentioned earlier by Pudeo that there are about 3000 hits for "anti-islam"/"anti-islamic sentiment" on Google Scholar. The tally for "Islamophobia" is 10 000. A topic search for "Islamophobia" on the somewhat more prestigious academic search engine Web of Knowledge (Thomson Reuters) returns 171 hits for "Islamophobia", a further 26 for "islamophobic" and 27 and 12 for "anti-islamic" and "anti-islam" (with significant overlap). On another prestigious search engine, JSTOR, the numbers are 334 for "Islamophobia" 133 for "anti-Islam". The three first articles returned for "Islamophobia" on Web of Knowledge are titled
- Islamophobia and Its Discontents Assailed by the right as a fiction, anti-Muslim bias is all too real for those who live with it
- Islamophobia's Sugar Mama Donor Nina Rosenwald has helped bring the anti-Muslim fringe into the mainstream
- Coping with Islamophobia: The effects of religious stigma on Muslim minorities' identity formation
- for "islamophobic" they are:
- Europe: Hotbed of Islamophobic Extremism
- Coping with Islamophobia: The effects of religious stigma on Muslim minorities' identity formation (overlap)
- Backlash of multiculturalist and republicanist policies of integration in the age of securitization
- These aren't the blog posts of some fringe lunatics. These are peer-reviewed research articles. Islamophobia is a real problem, and it is receiving far more scholarly attention than the finer points of the term's loaded connotations. There are also scholars in the field who note that the term is somewhat loaded due to current political polemics, but it is important to note that they do not consider it feasible to discontinue its use, nor do they advice against using it, but rather propose more stringent definitions or that new terms be introduced in order to differentiate better. That is, however, quite tangential to this discussion. The main point here is that "Islamophobia" is the established term for describing prejudice or hatred against Muslims, and if there were to be only one category, that is if we were to subsume rational criticism, prejudice and hatred under the same umbrella, it should still be named "Islamophobia", and not "anti-Islam" - on the basis of a purely numerical count.
- But, finally and crucially, as Liftarn mentioned, anti-islamic sentiments and Islamophobia aren't necessarily the same. Categorising them together is highly inappropriate towards fair, intellectual critics of Islam. Defining the borders will certainly lead to controversies, but that should and can be handled on a case-by-case basis by using appropriate sources.
- Best regards, benjamil talk/edits 09:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is indeed problematic, but if you look at Category:Homophobia it doesn't list a single person or organisation as Homophobic. Even if some American conservative Christian organisations are anti-gay, it would be rather controversial to do that. Category:Antisemitism does that to people though, which is wrong I believe. All of Islamophobia is Anti-Islamic, but not all of anti-Islam is Islamophobic. Thus, "anti-Islam" is the umbrella term for it all. So, besides Category:Anti-Islam and Category:Opposition to Islam is another category needed simply to add counterjihad? --Pudeo' 15:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak endorse. On one hand, I think it looks like a stretch to pull a consensus out of what looks like a no consensus. However, I am swayed by my view that mainspace categories are powerfully assertive of facts to the reader, and that these categories are troublesome, and that they contain no content themselves, and so if there is no consensus that they should exist, then no concensus should default to deletion, in the case of mainspace categories. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Would the same apply to Category:Homophobia and Category:Antisemitism? And the end result, categorizing Anders Behring Breivik, 2011 Norway attacks, Kach and Kahane Chai, Eurabia, Counterjihad and the English Defence League as "opposition to Islam", is this correct or neutral? According to which sources? And is it fair to categorize Breivik, Kach and Kahane Chai and the English Defence League together with non-racist critics of religion? JonFlaune (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not catergorise Anders or any single act under anti-Islam, not directly anyway. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse and salt as per Shrike and others. Let the add that I believe the article Islamophobia is powerful and evolving with the work of many hard-working editors. I hope the effort is directed to continuing the good work there. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse and salt, a difficult close that was bound to cause controversy and find itself at DRV, but one that I see as reasonable. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Where are the sources and policy-based arguments demonstrating the WP:FRINGE point of view to be "reasonable"? In fact we have a clear policy-based consensus to keep all the categories. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not admissible. I'm still waiting for those sources, I have not seen a single one supporting the assertions of those wanting to delete the categories. JonFlaune (talk) 07:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not CFD mark two. You presented your argument, but consensus was against it. You lost. I suggest you try to retain some dignity by accepting that and moving on, rather than stamping your foot like a petulant child having a tantrum, and desperately trying to get a term loaded with POV and subtext re-integrated into the category system. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Consensus was clearly to keep the categories, so you lost, not I. You continue to make assertions unsupported by any sources, and I take this as confirmation that sources don't exist. What you are claiming (Islamophobia to be a "loaded" term) is a WP:FRINGE POV, that sourced and policy-based consensus did not support, and that has so far not been supported by a single source in this discussion or elsewhere. In fact even our main article on Islamophobia establish the exact opposite, and has been demonstrated, there are plenty of sources establishing it to be the recognized scholarly and official term that is only rejected by the far-right fringe. If you have any sources supporting your assertions, then show us them. Deletions on Wikipedia are based on Wikipedia policy, not your personal opinions, so personal opinions unsupported by sources and policy don't count. JonFlaune (talk) 10:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for quoting that alphabet soup at me rather than getting the point, but nobody without a strong pre-existing POV going into that discussion could reasonably claim that your point of view found majority support. Nobody is disputing that islamophobia is a real phenomenon, which is why we're not talking about deleting the article of the same name. Nobody is disputing that it's a bad thing and that Breivik is a dangerous racist idiot. However, there is a clear consensus that using a nebulous and politically explosive term like that in our category system is not wanted, for the same reason we don't have categories entitled "Racists", "Idiots" or "Child Molestors". I expect that the next point you'll make is that other stuff exists, namely the homophobia and various anti-Zionist categories, and that we should delete those if we are to be consistent. I agree, but that's a discussion for a CSD on those categories, not one for DRV. I will not respond further to any further replies from you here unless you bring some actual policy or insight to the discussion, rather than just repeating a rejected point of view over and over. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment: Aftenposten is Norway's largest newspaper. In April this year they had an article titled "Supporters of Breivik in edit wars on the Internet", stating that they were "waging an ideological war to promote their ideas on Wikipedia". The specific issue was the portrayal of Islamophobia in the English Wikipedia, or more precisely the attempt to portray Islamophobia as "legitimate criticism of Islam". The President of Wikimedia Norway was "alarmed" over the issue. Several Norwegian newspapers have already reported on this following a more in-depth article by Norway's leading left-wing daily, and I can guarantee more press coverage on this issue if Islamophobia is portrayed as "opposition to Islam" per the fringe POV. JonFlaune (talk) 10:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
