Category talk:Anti-Islam sentiment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This category was nominated for deletion on November 7, 2007. The result of the discussion was rename. |
|
This category was nominated for deletion on November 23, 2007. The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn. |
|
This category was nominated for deletion on March 10, 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Contents |
[edit] Name
I know some might have preferred the original name "Islamophobia", but I think this should be acceptable as it's in parity with the other categories on religious discrimination. If you still want to complain about that consider that this was almost deleted.
Now I argued for this category existing under whatever name. I hope it's okay for me to say that if it ends up being misused I will be highly embarrassed. For a variety of reasons I think it best to be vigilant on maintaining standards like Wikipedia:Categorization#Guidelines for prejudice categories. In particular remember
7. Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option.
8. An article should normally possess all the referenced information necessary to demonstrate that it belongs in each of its categories. Avoid including categories in an article if the article itself doesn't adequately show it belongs there. For example, avoid placing a category for a profession or award unless the article provides some verification that the placement is accurate. Use the {{Category unsourced}} tag if the article is in a category but no sources demonstrate the category is appropriate.
Granted the first one could argue for it not existing, but I think if it's self-evident the article belongs it should be okay. On articles of living people I think we need to show even more restraint. This is largely just my opinion though. Thank you for your time.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rename?
We have the following religions with a corresponding anti category:
Why do we have the addition "sentiment" for the case of Islam? I think this category should be named just "Category:Anti-Islam", analogously to the others. --Lambiam 07:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's a fair point, however the category was originally Category:Islamophobia as it's now an officially recognised form of discrimination (on par with Xenophobia, Antisemitism, Homophobia or w/e), as the article mentions. It was renamed to Anti-Islam sentiment because it was believed Islamophobia was too POV, though I don't necessarily agree. I think renaming to "Anti-Islam" distances itself from what the category was originally intended for, which was genuine prejudice/discrimination against Islam and Muslims and not just opposing or disagreeing with Islam. To that end, we have attempted to enforce strict criteria on what is included in this category, the associated articles must explicitly discuss the subject in relation to prejudice/discrimination against Islam/Muslims, whether it be organisations like the EUMC who release reports on the rates of Antisemitism/Islamophobia in Europe, or whether it be subjects which have been discussed by reliable sources in relation to Islamophobia etc. On that basis I also disagree with making Category:Islam-related controversies a sub-category to this one, which as stated has very specific inclusion criteria. ITAQALLAH 17:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Islamophobia is not "at par" with Xenophobia. It is widely contested and argued against. As seen from the article itself, a lot of people criticise this term strongly and say this is an invalid concept etc. This is not the case with other phobias. No one denies xenophobia or homophobia exists. Now, lets not think of the past. The present is this: as pointed out by Lambian, we should make it consistent with the other religiuous terms. I thought of raising this point myself, i.e. why do we need the word "sentiment" in the category? It just sounds silly, sort of. Sentiment? I dont know whats that trying to say. Its simply anti-Islam like other religions. I dont see why anyone should have a problem and prefer anti-Islam sentiment, over Anti-Islam? Being against Islam is no different from being against hinduism. They're all religions. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- No academic denies Islamophobia exists, not even Fred Halliday. It was officially recognised as a form of discrimination on par with Xenophobia and Antisemitism, according to reliable sources, at the Stockholm International Forum on Combating Intolerance. You can see for yourself how many NGO's and international organisations attended. I'm sure we've been through all this before.
- Secondly, I think the aim is to distinguish between critique and prejudice/discrimination: both clearly exist as stated by reliable sources. In the same way, we have Category:Antisemitism and Category:Anti-Judaism. There is a clear distinction. I personally preferred Category:Islamophobia, but we do need something that connotes primarily discriminatory rhetoric/practices over just opposition. ITAQALLAH 18:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think there are many people who deny homophobia exists. The basic idea of many people is that homosexuals do not actually exist, in their opinion they are only people who have deluded themselves into enjoying perverse behaviors. Being "homophobic" would be about like being "Cotardphobic", in other words largely meaningless. I do not share that view, but in the world at large the idea homophobia doesn't/can't exist is much more common than it's going to be among Internet-connected English-speakers below the age of 35.--T. Anthony (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Several editors will fight tooth and nail to keep anything from being categorized as "Islamophobia" on Wikipedia. Even statements like "Islam is indeed a satanic cult" and "Umma is fascism" are called "criticisms" that, in their opinion, do not "ask for prejudice of muslims". --Lambiam 21:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'd be willing to add any such organization here. Or in the case of individuals to the activist section. I do believe in a restriction to all these "anti-" categories because of BLP concerns. Still I'll type in statements like this on a Wikipedia search and see what I get.--T. Anthony (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Several editors will fight tooth and nail to keep anything from being categorized as "Islamophobia" on Wikipedia. Even statements like "Islam is indeed a satanic cult" and "Umma is fascism" are called "criticisms" that, in their opinion, do not "ask for prejudice of muslims". --Lambiam 21:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Islamophobia is not "at par" with Xenophobia. It is widely contested and argued against. As seen from the article itself, a lot of people criticise this term strongly and say this is an invalid concept etc. This is not the case with other phobias. No one denies xenophobia or homophobia exists. Now, lets not think of the past. The present is this: as pointed out by Lambian, we should make it consistent with the other religiuous terms. I thought of raising this point myself, i.e. why do we need the word "sentiment" in the category? It just sounds silly, sort of. Sentiment? I dont know whats that trying to say. Its simply anti-Islam like other religions. I dont see why anyone should have a problem and prefer anti-Islam sentiment, over Anti-Islam? Being against Islam is no different from being against hinduism. They're all religions. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- we should split this category into Anti-Islam and Persecution of Muslims.Jwray (talk) 04:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion of the merits of this category and its inclusion criteria
Those who have this category watched may be interested in a discussion on Talk:Fitna (film), which one editor keeps on bringing back to what s/he considers the criteria for inclusion into this category [1] (namely an entry meeting the definition of Islamophobia). Since s/he seems unwilling to bring his concerns up here I figured I'd direct those interested in this category there. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm going to hesitantly say that it does belong. It is notable to the issue of "Anti-Islam sentiment" and its effects. However in this case you also have something that says negative things about Islam itself rather than about Islamism or "Qutbism." At the same time it is not a living person so BLP concerns don't apply. (I added names to the activist category, as we have it, but I think it's a bad idea to have it) Taken all this together I think it fits pretty well even if its inclusion might anger some.--T. Anthony (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- There were also (less protracted but inconclusive) discussions on Talk:Faith Freedom International. Some discussants essentially argue that putting an article in this category expresses a point of view and is therefore not allowed. In other words, the Wikipedia policies require this category to remain empty. --Lambiam 01:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Criteria
So, what exactly are the criteria for this category? The problem with "This category indicates that the article in question discusses or refers to the topic of Anti-Islam sentiment" is that there is no topic of Anti-Islam sentiment: the link isn't red because it actually goes directly -- does not pass go, does not collect 200 -- to Islamophobia. rudra (talk) 04:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- And I just now fixed that. rudra (talk) 04:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- It should link to Islamophobia, because the Category was originally Category:Islamophobia until it was renamed to a 'less POV' Category:Anti-Islam sentiment. What it's used to signify, however, is the same. That is, prejudice or discrimination against Islam (vis-a-vis Islamophobia). See the above discussions too. The criteria for inclusion in this category, as with Category:Antisemitism or others, is that the article must be discussed within the context of Islamophobia/Anti-Islam sentiment and this must be supported with verifiable sources in the article itself. Such articles include European Fundamental Rights Agency, Forum Against Islamophobia and Racism, Jerry Klein’s 2006 Radio Experiment, and so on. ITAQALLAH 11:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- In that case, it should also say the topic is Islamophobia. Blue-linking the phrase "Anti-Islam Sentiment" suggests that there is something (more) besides Islamophobia to its definition. Classic bait and switch. Suggested rephrasing:
- "This category indicates that the article in question discusses or refers to the topic of Anti-Islam sentiment, also known as Islamophobia." rudra (talk) 05:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- That's fine with me. ITAQALLAH 21:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Me too.Bless sins (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- That's fine with me. ITAQALLAH 21:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- "This category indicates that the article in question discusses or refers to the topic of Anti-Islam sentiment, also known as Islamophobia." rudra (talk) 05:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- In that case, it should also say the topic is Islamophobia. Blue-linking the phrase "Anti-Islam Sentiment" suggests that there is something (more) besides Islamophobia to its definition. Classic bait and switch. Suggested rephrasing:
- It should link to Islamophobia, because the Category was originally Category:Islamophobia until it was renamed to a 'less POV' Category:Anti-Islam sentiment. What it's used to signify, however, is the same. That is, prejudice or discrimination against Islam (vis-a-vis Islamophobia). See the above discussions too. The criteria for inclusion in this category, as with Category:Antisemitism or others, is that the article must be discussed within the context of Islamophobia/Anti-Islam sentiment and this must be supported with verifiable sources in the article itself. Such articles include European Fundamental Rights Agency, Forum Against Islamophobia and Racism, Jerry Klein’s 2006 Radio Experiment, and so on. ITAQALLAH 11:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Islamophobia
Islamophobia literally means fear of Islam. This is a staw-man when applied indiscriminately to any critic of Islam. It is used to marginalize all critics of islam by falsely asserting that all of their criticism is based on fear. It is an extremely POV-pushing word (like "terrorist" and "quack") that should be banned from all article prose except the islamophobia article itself or articles which have multiple reliable sources to demonstrate and actual FEAR of islam, not just any kind of anti-islam sentiment.
This category should be moved to anti-Islam to avoid making another straw man, which is to imply by "senitment" in the category name that all criticism of Islam places emotion above argument.
The very name and description of the category is pushing a pro-islam POV and dawing up multiple staw men.
Homophobia is also a POV-pushing category name that should be renamed to Anti-homosexuality.
Whatever the topic x, a neutral description of opposition to it should be called anti-x. Avoid thowing up straw men by inserting "phobia" indiscriminately.76.85.197.151 (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- There are a couple differences. One "anti-homosexuality" is not used very often for whatever reason. "Anti-Islam sentiment" also makes this similar to the other "anti-religion" categories. We have Category:Anti-Judaism rather than any Category:Judeophobia. Lastly homosexuals and gay-rights-movement supporters are more common on Wikipedia than Muslims or pro-Muslim people. I do not like Category:Homophobia as such because "homophobia" is, as Islamophobia is accused of being, often a blanket term for anyone who criticizes most anything about homosexuality or the gay community. (In fairness though they seem to be using it more strictly than that) Still Wikipedia is dominated/created by secularists and sexual libertines so you have to work on a compromise that they can accept. I've at times found these biases intolerable, but until Wikipedia dies I decided it's too significant to ignore.--T. Anthony (talk) 23:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Islamophobia refers to prejudice/discrimination against Islam or Muslims - to claim it primarily connotes "fear of Islam" (yes - that is the literal rendition - but not meaning with which it was originally coined by Runnymede. Scholars instead describe it as more of a "social anxiety" than a "fear") is itself a straw man. Once this flawed premise is shed, and it is understood that only article topics that are discussed in relation to Islamophobia by reliable sources are included, then I think you'll see that this category is no different to that of Category:Antisemitism or Category:Homophobia. ITAQALLAH 20:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- I'm confused. We have a Category:Anti-Islam sentiment. We do not have a Category:Islamophobia. We fixed the prose on the category page to explain everything. What's the problem? rudra (talk) 06:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- You can argue all you want about how the word has come to mean something totally different from the literal meaning of the parts of the word, but that is the problem. The coinage of Islamophobia was intended to, and commonly does, conflate criticism of Islam with fear of Islam and conflate fear of Islam with bigotry against Islam. Per WP:V and WP:NPOV we should avoid conflating criticism with bigotry. All anti- categories should be prefixed by anti-, not replaced with a propagandistic neologism. Islamophobia is such a POV-pushing neologism, which was established in the AFD discussion for the Islamophobia category, which is why the category was moved here. Now someone has resurrected the Islamophobia nomenclature in the category description. The reference to Islamophobia should be fixed per the AFD discussion. Jwray (talk) 01:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Whatever you think about the validity of this term, of "homophobia," or any other term, is utterly irrelevant. We are not conflating criticism with discrimination at all - we are applying the category to pages which have been discussed in the context of anti-Islam prejudice/discrimination or Islamophobia by reliable sources, hence fulfilling WP:V. The grievances over the word - which you apparently share- are of a minority opinion really, as the term is recognised and used by Western authorities, sociologists, and mainstream media. The CfD discussion merely recommended a name change from 'Islamophobia' to 'Anti-Islam sentiment' - the topic is still the same, namely prejudice/discrimination against Islam or Muslims. You can't just change the topic of the category to your own liking, and we already have a category focusing on criticism: Category:Criticism of Islam ITAQALLAH 15:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- If the topic is, exclusively, prejudice or discrimination against muslims, then why is Category:Anti-Islam Activists in it? This is a BLP violation and factually inaccurate. Being anti- something does not at all imply prejudice or violation of the individual rights of its adherents. You're conflating the whole tapestry anti-islam with bigotry against islam. There are plenty of real bigots against islam, but calling the category anti-islam sentiment disparages legitimate anti-islam activists who happen to be in the category, such as Wafa Sultan, who is not a bigot. The disambig page for Anti-Islam acknowledges that Anti-islam can refer to multiple distinct things, including both islamophobia and criticism of islam. This category name, as you're attempting to use it, makes the claim that all anti-islam is islamophobia, which is incorrect. Jwray (talk) 03:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- If you think a sub-category doesn't belong, then that should be discussed seperately. The criteria for inclusion is quite clear on the category page - and there is already a separate category for criticism; this one is for prejudice/discrimination. If you'd prefer a rename back to Category:Islamophobia or something else, you're free to bring it up for discussion. ITAQALLAH 06:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- If the topic is, exclusively, prejudice or discrimination against muslims, then why is Category:Anti-Islam Activists in it? This is a BLP violation and factually inaccurate. Being anti- something does not at all imply prejudice or violation of the individual rights of its adherents. You're conflating the whole tapestry anti-islam with bigotry against islam. There are plenty of real bigots against islam, but calling the category anti-islam sentiment disparages legitimate anti-islam activists who happen to be in the category, such as Wafa Sultan, who is not a bigot. The disambig page for Anti-Islam acknowledges that Anti-islam can refer to multiple distinct things, including both islamophobia and criticism of islam. This category name, as you're attempting to use it, makes the claim that all anti-islam is islamophobia, which is incorrect. Jwray (talk) 03:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Whatever you think about the validity of this term, of "homophobia," or any other term, is utterly irrelevant. We are not conflating criticism with discrimination at all - we are applying the category to pages which have been discussed in the context of anti-Islam prejudice/discrimination or Islamophobia by reliable sources, hence fulfilling WP:V. The grievances over the word - which you apparently share- are of a minority opinion really, as the term is recognised and used by Western authorities, sociologists, and mainstream media. The CfD discussion merely recommended a name change from 'Islamophobia' to 'Anti-Islam sentiment' - the topic is still the same, namely prejudice/discrimination against Islam or Muslims. You can't just change the topic of the category to your own liking, and we already have a category focusing on criticism: Category:Criticism of Islam ITAQALLAH 15:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- You can argue all you want about how the word has come to mean something totally different from the literal meaning of the parts of the word, but that is the problem. The coinage of Islamophobia was intended to, and commonly does, conflate criticism of Islam with fear of Islam and conflate fear of Islam with bigotry against Islam. Per WP:V and WP:NPOV we should avoid conflating criticism with bigotry. All anti- categories should be prefixed by anti-, not replaced with a propagandistic neologism. Islamophobia is such a POV-pushing neologism, which was established in the AFD discussion for the Islamophobia category, which is why the category was moved here. Now someone has resurrected the Islamophobia nomenclature in the category description. The reference to Islamophobia should be fixed per the AFD discussion. Jwray (talk) 01:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
-
