Template talk:Islamophobia/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

New proposal to rename the template

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Islamophobia → Template:Anti-Islamic sentiment –

I do realise that much discussing has been done regarding this issue, but I think it right to bring it up again. I propose, once more, a renaming of this template to "Anti-Islamic sentiment". The key point I want to bring up is that the sheer controversy over the naming of this template should be enough to justify its renaming.

Here's in response to those allusions to the antisemitism template, which the community won't rename to "Anti-Jewish sentiment". The fact is, the word "antisemitism" spurs no controversy over its political inclination. The content of the heated debates over the (twice) proposed deletion of the Islamophobia template clearly indicate that the term is at least controversial. An uncontroversial alternative would be as descriptive and would be better conformant to the neutral point of view.

It is irrelevant to mention that the term Islamophobia is the most widely accepted term (whether or not it really is). If an equally descriptive, but uncontroversial (and in my opinion less politically inclined) term is possible, why not adopt it?

The controversy over the term often comes from its roots. Some will point out that the suffix "phobia" means "an irrational fear of". Others will argue that the term is quite old and has somewhat lost it's relation to its lexical sense. The latter argument is just wrong. The term is consistently and almost exclusively used to describe (presumptively) unfounded anti-Islamic sentiment from a critical (read non-neutral) point of view. To state the irrationality of one's views against Islam is opinion based. To simply say that one has views against Islam is fact based (when they do, of course).

There seems to be controversy over the inclusion of Jihad Watch in the template's listings. Why does this need be? Why do we have to use scholarly opinions as proxies for our deciding of what should be in our list, especially when factual based unbiased alternatives are possible? Changing the template's name to "Anti-Islamic sentiment" would allow us to group under a same listing all organisations and events expressing such sentiment, regardless of debates' outcome on whether it is either justified or irrational.

--Nicolas Perrault III (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Support Well articulated Nicolas. I think another piece of evidence that this move is needed is that the Associated Press recently dropped the term Islamophobia from its style book [1], presumptively because it is not the most neutral word of choice. If you would like the input of the greater community, you may want to do a formal move request. Plot Spoiler (talk) 05:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. OP's reasoning is compelling. If an equally descriptive, but uncontroversial (and in my opinion less politically inclined) term is possible, why not adopt it? -- Exactly. --87.79.231.17 (talk) 09:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Week Support Seems more neutral. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Nobody sees the name of a template, this is completely pointless. nableezy - 15:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Presumably if this is renamed the word "Islamophobia" in the template itself will be changed to "Anti-Islamic Sentiment". I think that's the point of the RM. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
You can do that anyway, and if that is the point then this goes right in the face of WP:COMMONNAME. A title being non-neutral is not the determining factor in its use as a title. What reliable sources call something is what Wikipedia calls it, regardless of the controversy over the term. nableezy - 16:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your involvment nableezy. Just note however that a title being non-neutral can be the determining factor for changing it. The link you've embedded, WP:COMMONNAME, addresses this issue:

Neutrality is also considered; our policy on neutral titles, and what neutrality in titles is, follows in the next section. When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. (...) In some cases a descriptive phrase is best as the title (e.g., Population of Canada by year). These are often invented specifically for articles, and should reflect a neutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions. Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words.

— English Wikipedia Policy, Article titles, sections Common names and Non-judgemental descriptive titles

--Nicolas Perrault III (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

But Anti-Islamic sentiment isnt a fairly common name, now is it? nableezy - 15:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
The last part of my cited text mentions that commonness isn't necessary and that names can be invented specifically for articles, and should reflect a neutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions. Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words. -- Nicolas Perrault III (talk) 04:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
but the last portion only comes into effect if the first portion of the conditional is met "When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common" - which in this case hasnt been met.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Also the proposed name is far from neutral as this covers racism against Muslims, not being against the religion as such. Would you label Hitler as being against Judaism or an antisemite? // Liftarn (talk)
  • Strong oppose, with caveat. I oppose because this template covers a concept that we describe at Islamophobia. Changing the template's name to differ from the corresponding article can only serve to create confusion. My caveat is that this is a procedural oppose, not a substantial one. If you want to link to this to a requested move of Islamophobia to Anti-Islamic sentiment, I'll strike this vote and reassess based on the merits of the question. --BDD (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
    • You've definitely got a point and I'll give it a go on the main article. This seems like it will be a tough one as much of the article relates to the word itself (etymology, debate over the term) and not only on episodes of anti-Islamic sentiment. The best option (I mean, in accordance with my views) would be to split the Islamophobia article into two new ones. The first would detail anti-Islamic sentiment and could be named as such. The second could discuss the controversial term Islamophobia itself and keep that name. If that passes, we'll discuss the renaming of this template. For now, I'll reorient my message to the Islamophobia article's talk page. --Nicolas Perrault III (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
    • It's done, I've created a request for a move of the Islamophobia article as well. -- Nicolas Perrault III (talk) 04:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Your followthrough is appreciated, but to clarify, I still oppose this request, now because Islamophobia was closed as not moved. Again, I don't want the template and the article to have different names. I've also come to the opinion that this request is also wrong on its merits, though it's surely made in good faith. --BDD (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Current title is clearly a pejorative, dismissive, and POV term that is used by campaigners more often than neutral commentators. There exists a widely-used, neutral, and descriptive name. Folks, this is a no-brainer. Shrigley (talk) 06:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose because: a) It doesn't matter if it's called Little men in funny hats because it's not something the users see anyway. b) this template covers the subject of islamophobia so having it named like that makes a lot of sense. Renaming it just because some islamophobes may be offended is not a valid reason (and the same goes for the antisemitism template). // Liftarn (talk)
Renaming it just because some islamophobes may be offended -- That's a bit of a nonsequitur. If only for political reasons, Islamophobes would likely prefer the label "Islamophobe" (i.e. fear) to being accused of harboring Anti-Islamic sentiment (i.e. hatred). --87.78.54.250 (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
while some islamophobes may (just as antisemites) embrace the term most of them do not. It is the most used term and we don't rename the antisemitism template to "Anti-Judaism sentiment" just to please antisemites. // Liftarn (talk)
That's a very poor comparison, evidently. "Anti-" denotes hatred. "Phobia" denotes fear. Your Gedankenexperiment move wouldn't change anything for antisemites. My point is correct, your idea that the label "Islamophobe" might even in theory be more offensive to members of that hategroup than being accurately labeled a hategroup (ie. "Anti-") is ludicrous. Sorry to be frank about this, but I'm tired of people pretending not to hear valid points. --87.79.214.131 (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually the comparison is perfectly valid. We have the pairs islamophobia/antisemitism (hate based on ethno-religious background) and anti-Islam/anti-Judaism (being against the religion). // Liftarn (talk)
  • Regarding your first concern, the visible word "Islamophobia" would change in the template of all articles in which it is placed. The renaming (or moving) of the template itself is but a corollary to the rewording of the template title.
Afterwards, you recall that this template covers the subject of Islamophobia, but I report controversy over this name and challenge its neutrality.-- Nicolas Perrault III (talk) 04:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
It is a neutral term for the subject and the term used in research on the subject. You will have to come up with a lot better argument than "I don't like it". // Liftarn (talk)
Please don't quote me on things I haven't said. Regarding your second concern (above, 'b'), note that I have equally requested a move for the article entitled "Islamophobia" so as to keep the link between the template and the relevant head article. -- Nicolas Perrault III (talk) 04:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • All parties may want to review the Islamophobia RM that occurred this time last year. The proposed move to Anti-Islam was closed as no consensus, which may have been a bit generous. That doesn't mean the article or template couldn't be moved now, but WP:POVTITLE may apply. --BDD (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose the proposal, support move to a really neutral title like Criticism of Islam.--Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 17:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Wouldn't that create confusion with Criticism of Islam? --BDD (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
lol, only to people who think there is no such thing as an irrational hatred or fear of Islam. nableezy - 19:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Isn't that the point, though? That criticism of Islam is rational but Islamophobia isn't? --BDD (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Care is needed here as we need to distinguish two things. Criticism usually involves arguments. A book that would criticise the values conveyed by the Qur'ran would fall under criticism of Islam. Conversely, a book that would incite people to burn Qur'ans would fall under anti-Islamic sentiment. A book that would do both would fall under both categories. I believe that words such as 'justified' and 'irrational' are subjective and should generally be avoided in socio-historical contexts. -- Nicolas Perrault III (talk) 04:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately the care you referred to is often not taken, whereby everything critical of islam is being categorized as 'islamophobia'.Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 11:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
No, we follow what reliable sources say. You may not like it, but it doesn't change the facts. anyway, is it really necessary to have this pointless discussion all the time? Renaming it to "Criticism of Islam" would be very confusing since that is not the subject. Something like "Hate and discrimination against Muslims" would perhaps be correct, but it is better to use the shorter and more established term. // Liftarn (talk)
  • Support. Agree with the approximately 2-1 majority here. As an equally logical alternative, I would support Estlandia's suggestion above that it be "Criticism of Islam." Have always wondered about this, especially when I see it as a category at the bottom of a page. Well articulated by nom -- it is clearly being used where it should not be, and has therefore an innappropriate branding effect.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Supportper Epeefleche Pass a Method talk 23:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. This makes no sense whatsoever. Rename the template, and leave the article on the subject with the existing name? Nonsensical... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Circular reasoning. If the article isn't moved, that's partly because of your opposition there. --87.79.214.131 (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: "Islamophobia" is a very polemical term, and as such always liable for POV. It portrays criticism, fair or not, as something approximating a disease (phobia = psychological sickness). Besides, many authors believe it to be a new name invented by Islamicists specifically with the purpose to denounce their detractors. Unsurprisingly, ever since the introduction of the template, there have been many unnecessary fights about its inclusion in articles which are merely categorized as critical of Islam. All this can be easily evaded with "Anti-Islamic sentiment" which is more neutral. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 06:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: this should be discussed jointly with the proposal to move the article Islamophobia. The template should be under the same title as the article. --RJFF (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: I propose to stop this discussion and start a Move-multi request for both the article and the template. --RJFF (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Support As the article Islamophobia has shown, the term is problematic even for experts who want to continue to use the term (Chris Allen for example). However, change won't solve the problem of grouping a range of phenomena under one umbrella. Should "Minaret controversy in Switzerland" be grouped with Breivik's "2011 Norway attacks?" Under issues tab we have "Persecution of Muslims" grouped with "Quran desecration". Persecution includes mass slaughter such as the Crusades to the present. In our [Category:anti-Islam], Persecution has a sub-category for such atrocities, which go back centuries before the term Islamophobia appeared. If such a wide range and vast differences of degree are included in one category (or template) it should have a broad generic name. However, I'd prefer that the template be deleted. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. We don't need this euphemism. Also, this proposal should be synchronised with the one at Talk:Islamophobia#Proposal to rename article to "Anti-Islamic sentiment". --Stfg (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • oppose per common name -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • support per proposer William M. Connolley (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - to make it crystal clear, I oppose this renaming request. Firstly because it is pointless, as no reader sees the name of the template, secondly because the article is titled Islamophobia, and thirdly because this flies in the face of WP:COMMONNAME. Islamophobia is overwhelmingly used by mainstream academic publications. Anti-Islamic sentiment isnt. POV doesnt factor into this as, as WP:COMMONNAME makes clear. The idea that this is equivalent to criticism of Islam is preposterous. Only those who claim that there is no such thing as unsubstantiated, unreasonable, and frankly moronic criticism of Islam could fail to see the distinction. nableezy - 19:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Note:
Here is a short list some of the many sources where the term is used (not counting UC Berkeley's Islamophobia Studies Journal):
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Islamophobia. Council on American-Islamic Relations.
  • Islamophobia. University of California, Berkeley. Center for Race & Gender. Islamophobia Research & Documentation Project
  • Is America Islamophobic? Cover of Time magazine, August 30, 2010
  • "Islamophobia Strikes Out in South". Huffington Post, October 15, 2012
  • "Comic talks Muslim humor and Islamophobia". CNN, November 13, 2012
  • "The Distorted Lens of Islamophobia". Center for American Progress
  • "Knowing Islamophobia when we see it". Al Jazeera
  • "Islamophobia, The Concept And The Polemic". The Brussels Journal
  • Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, by Deepa Kumar, Associate Professor of Media Studies and Middle East Studies at Rutgers University. ISBN 9781608462117
  • "The 10 most Islamophobic moments in the 2012 elections", Salon.com
  • Islamophobia: The Ideological Campaign Against Muslims, by Stephen Sheehi, Associate Professor of Arabic and Arab Culture and Director of the Arabic Program at the University of South Carolina. ISBN 978-0932863676
  • Islamophobia: Making Muslims the Enemy, by Peter Gottschalk, a professor of religion at Wesleyan University, and Gabriel Greenberg. ISBN 978-0742552869
  • The Islamophobia Industry: How the Right Manufactures Fear of Muslims, by Nathan Lean, a scholar of Middle East studies. ISBN 978-0745332536
  • Islamophobia: The Challenge of Pluralism in the 21st Century, editors John L. Esposito (Georgetown University Professor of Religion and International Affairs, Founding Director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding) and Ibrahim Kalin (Assistant Professor of Foreign Service, Georgetown University). ISBN 978-0199753659
  • "Muslims in the European Union: Discrimination and Islamophobia", European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights
  • "Not a Good Night for Islamophobia", The American Conservative
  • "Bishop warns of 'Catholic Islamophobia'", The Local
  • "'Homophobia' and 'Islamophobia' are the right words for the job", The Guardian UK
  • "Fighting Islamophobia in schools", UNESCO
  • "Islamophobia, not Islam, will be the end of Israel", Haaretz
  • Xenophobia and Islamophobia in Europe, by Professor Raymond Taras, Tulane Unviversity. ISBN 978-0-7486-5071-2
  • "Pushback Against Growing Islamophobia", Inter Press Service News Agency
  • Islamophobia, by Christopher Allen, Research Fellow, The Institute of Applied Social Studies, University of Birmingham, UK. ISBN 978-0754651406
  • "The Growing Christian Movement Pushing Back Against Islamophobia ", The New Republic
  • Islamophobia/Islamophilia: Beyond the Politics of Enemy and Friend (Indiana Series in Middle East Studies), edited by Andrew Shryock, Professor of Anthropology at the University of Michigan. ISBN 978-0253221995
  • Islamophobia: issues, challenges and action: a report, Runnymede Trust. Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia, Dr. Richard Stone, Hugh Muir. ISBN 9781858563176
  • Against Islamophobia: Quantitative Analyses of Global Terrorism, World Political Cycles and Center Periphery Structures, by Arno Tausch, Adjunct Professor (Universitaetsdozent) of Political Science at Innsbruck University, Department of Political Science. ISBN 160021536X
  • Islamophobia and Its Consequences on Young People: European Youth Centre Budapest, 1-6 June 2004, by Ingrid Ramberg, Editor in Chief at Multicultural Centre, Botkyrka, Sweden. ISBN 9287156735
  • Teaching Against Islamophobia, by Professor Joe L Kincheloe (founder of the Paulo and Nita Freire International Project for Critical Pedagogy), Shirley R. Steinberg (professor, McGill University), Christopher Darius Stonebanks (Associate Professor of Education and currently the Chair of the Research Ethics Board at Bishop's University). ISBN 9781433103360
  • Confronting Islamophobia In Educational Practice, by Barry Van Driel, Secretary General of the International Association for Intercultural Education, Editor-in-Chief of the academic journal Intercultural Education, and curriculum developer and teacher trainer at the Anne Frank House, Amsterdam. ISBN 9781858563404
  • From the Far Right to the Mainstream: Islamophobia in Party Politics and the Media, edited by Humayun Ansari (Professor of Islam and Cultural Diversity at the Department of History of the University of London) and Dr. Farid Hafez (wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter am Institut für Orientalistik an der Universität Wien). ISBN 9783593396484
  • Anti-semitism and Islamophobia: hatreds old and new in Europe, volume 28 of Paradigm, by Matti Bunzl, associate professor of anthropology and history at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. ISBN 9780976147589
  • Islamophobia and the Question of Muslim Identity: The Politics of Difference and Solidarity, by Evelyn Leslie Hamdon, Killam scholar in the department of educational policy studies at the University of Alberta. ISBN 9781552663394
  • A suitable enemy: racism, migration and Islamophobia in Europe, by Liz Fekete and A. Sivanandan, director of the Institute of Race Relations in London. ISBN 9780745327921
  • Thinking Through Islamophobia: Global Perspectives, by Salman Sayyid, Director: International Centre for Muslim and Non-Muslim Understanding, Division Office Research EAS, University of South Australia. ISBN 9781850659907
  • England's Secular Scripture: Islamophobia and the Protestant Aesthetic, by Jo Carruthers, RCUK Research Fellow in Performativity, Space and Place Department of Theology and Religious Studies, University of Bristol, UK. ISBN 9780826439376
  • Multicultural nationalism: Islamophobia, Anglophobia, and devolution, by Asifa Hussain, William Lockley Miller. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199280711
  • Islamophobia in the West: Measuring and Explaining Individual Attitudes, by Marc Helbling, Head of the research group 'Immigration Policies in Comparison' (IMPIC) at the Social Science Research Centre Berlin. ISBN 9780415594448
  • Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, by Hillel Schenker, co-editor of the Palestine-Israel Journal. ISBN 9781558764026
  • Global Islamophobia: Muslims and Moral Panic in the West, by George Morgan (Cabot College) and Scott Poynting (Professor of Sociology at Manchester Metropolitan University.) ISBN 9781409431190
  • The Relationships Between Racism, Islamophobia, Religious Dogmatism and Attitudes Toward War, by Venus M. Nicolino, Alliant International University. ISBN 9780542934124
Just saying... // Liftarn (talk)
  • Support. The current name would be NPOV only if most authors writing about this subject used it, or at least accepted the psychiatric analogy that it implies, per WP:POVTITLE. Holding a set of fairly common opinions is not analogous to suffering a mental disorder. We already have anti-Hinduism, anti-Catholicism, anti-Mormonism, anti-Polish sentiment etc, so the proposed title fits an established format. Kauffner (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
What exactly in POVTITLE supports any of what you just wrote? nableezy - 17:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The guideline says we should avoid non-neutral words unless they are both prevalent and the usage of "a significant majority of English-language reliable sources." On Highbeam for the last two years, I get 1,520 hits for "Islamophobia OR Islamophobic", 5,582 for "anti-jihad OR anti-Islam OR anti-Islamic OR anti-Muslim." There are of course various other ways to describe this viewpoint as well. Kauffner (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
You aren't searching for the right phrase - the proposal was to change to 'Anti-Islamic sentiment' - and searching for 'anti-Islam sentiment OR anti-Islamic sentiment' gets 432 hits [2]. Anyway, as I've indicated below, this whole discussion is either deliberately WP:POINTy, or utterly pointless, and if you want to argue over the title, it needs to be done at Talk:Islamophobia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
My point above, which somehow bypassed you, was that most writing on this subject does not use the term "Islamophobia". There should certainly be an Islamophobia article to trace words' origin and usage. The problem is with this template, particularly its list of organizations and blogs. Kauffner (talk) 12:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Except that they may not be on this subject. Islamophobic != Anti-Islam != "anti-jihad". nableezy - 15:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
The Politically Incorrect (blog) actually sells mugs and t-shirts that say "Islamophobic and proud of it". Dougweller (talk) 08:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
So you do consider the name to be NPOV. Perhaps you should consider changing your vote than since it looks like you support changing the name. // Liftarn (talk)
  • Comment. Nableezy writes above that the proposal "is pointless, as no reader sees the name of the template". If this is indeed correct (and I've seen nothing to suggest that it isn't), I would argue that any change of the template name to something other than the name of the corresponding article can only be seen as a WP:POINTy effort at 'winning' an argument in non-article space, and thus entirely contrary to the spirit of elementary Wikipedia guidelines, policy and practice. Accordingly, should the proposed change to the template name be made, without the corresponding change to the article itself (which is of course currently under discussion), I will raise the matter at the appropriate noticeboard, asking for it to be reversed as contrary to both policy and common sense - and I reserve the right to ask for sanctions to be taken against any contributor making such a change. This entire discussion should never have taken place - especially where essentially the same debate is occurring regarding something our readers will see. Contributors are supposed to use talk pages etc to discuss changes to article content, not to engage in facile political arguments with each other over issues that have no bearing whatsoever on what our readers see - if contributors wish to argue over such issues, they will need to find another forum to do so: this simply isn't what Wikipedia is for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:NPOV. Also agree with Andy that "what the reader sees" is irrelevant. Athenean (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I think you may have, just slightly, misunderstood Andy's point. nableezy - 23:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. How would we connect articles related to Islamophobia without an Islamophobia template? It is ridiculous to think that Criticism of Islam or like titles are interchangable with the hatred of Muslims. Sepsis II (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why not have a causes section?

In the interest of your NPOV policies, why is there no causes of Islamphobia in this template? It would link to pages such as:

The entire template seems to be a cherry picking exercise, so why not at least balance it out? Or maybe have an equally useful template called 'Criticism of Islam'?--A pinhead (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

What causes islamophobia, antisemitism and other forms of racism is not uncontroversial and may be different from individual to individual. It may be due to clinical reasons like paranoia, but most seem to attribute it to a feeling of not being noticed and then you find others who share your views (easier now with internet) and then you get into the conspiracy theorist mindset where you have revealed a huge secret and they you know The Truth and everybody else is trying to keep it secret. // Liftarn (talk)
Actually, "Islamophobia" is not racism because neither Islam nor Muslims are a race. Also, so-called "Islamophobia" has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. Whereas Jews are hated for no good reason, there is very good cause to dislike Muslims because they are extremely racist, violent, oppressive, and misogynistic. There are even opinions polls conducted among Muslims in Britain which shows that the vast majority of Muslims support violent jihad and are anti-Semitic and racist. Furthermore, Muslims do not suffer from regular pogroms and genocides, unlike Jews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeystipe (talk • contribs)
Racism does not require any race. Actually there exists only one human race (unless you count the Neanderthals and they are extinct), but racism still exists. There are people that thinks Jews are extremely racist, violent, oppressive, and misogynistic. That they are plotting to take over the world and so on people who believe such things about Jews are called antisemites. People who believe such things bout Muslims are called islamophobes. Regarding pogroms I think you should read Persecution of Muslims. // Liftarn (talk)
You are wrong. There is only one human species, but there are multiple human races. A race is a group of people who share a common genealogical descent. Racism is discrimination against a group of people based on their race. Muslims are not a race. They are only a religion, just like Christians. Would you call discrimination against Christians racism? Of course you wouldn't. So you shouldn't call discrimination against Muslims racism either. Jews, however, are both a religion and a race (or ethnic group, which emphasizes a shared culture and language among a race). Also, you should see Antisemitism in the Arab world, Islam and antisemitism, Jewish Nakba, Farhud, Category:Anti-Jewish pogroms by Muslims (26 articles!), Islamic terrorism, Islamism, Dhimmi, Palestinian political violence, Muslim conquests, Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world, Haj Amin al-Husseini, Arab nationalism, 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian), Antisemitism in Sweden, Antisemitism in Norway, and Toulouse and Montauban shootings. Mikeystipe (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
You are wrong. Judaism (like Islam) is a religion. Not a species, not a race, not even an ethnicity. But it is a culture and you can belong to the culture without following a religion, i.e. you can be an atheist Jew or an atheist cultural Muslim. And as they are cultures they can be the target of racism (cultural racism). And you may also notice that Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say, not what you think. // Liftarn (talk)

Discussion at NPOVN

See Politically Incorrect (blog). Dougweller (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Removing organisations while there is an ongoing discussion at WP:NPOV

This seems entirely wrong. There is clearly no consensus there and yet 2 editors have decided to remove all organisations from the template despite the fact that there is an ongoing discussion. Dougweller (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree. As there is no consensus for the removal of every organisation from the template such edits should wait until after a new consensus is established. // Liftarn (talk)
WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? See above (plus further links) where the community consensus lies. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, obviously you did not notice the dissenting voices. Where there is disagreement there is no consensus. // Liftarn (talk)
Relevant links to discussions on the issue has been provided, removal is justified.--Loomspicker (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
I understand that that is your view. It does not make it so. // Liftarn (talk)

Inclusion criteria

Hi, what is the criteria for an article to be included in this template? Or to be more precise, what is the individual criteria for issues/incidents/organisations/blogs/opposition's to be included? I looked above, but there seems to be no agreement.--Loomspicker (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd have thought that the inclusion criteria were self evident - topics reported by reliable sources to be relevant to the subject matter of the template. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
"Islamophobia is used generally to refer to prejudice against, hatred towards, irrational fear of, or racism[1] towards Muslims." That seems to be the criteria as that is how our article Islamaphobia defines it. Seems reasonable to me. Dougweller (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but sources aren't always in agreement on what consists of prejudice, who is motivated by hate, or what fear is irrational. What percent of sources are needed to label a person or group prejudiced, hate-filled, or irrational? Is there a wikipedia standard for making such judgments? Jason from nyc (talk) 17:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
If reliable sources say that X is islamophobic it is OK to include it in the template. Some like Westboro Baptist Church could be debated as they hate everything. So I would say that the islamophobia must be a significant part. // Liftarn (talk)
But if reliable sources are split you can't just cherry pick. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how that matters - if there are reliable sources calling something Islamophobic, then the template is relevant as a navigation template. Dougweller (talk) 11:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Fortunately I don't think we have had any such case where one source says X is islamophobic and another says X is not. // Liftarn (talk)
Without broad and near unanimous sources we are in danger of branding an individual or organization based on group of sources that turn out to be partisan. Broad across-the-board sourcing should be a reasonable criteria for making such a judgment. This problem seems to manifest itself in this template and to some degree Template:Racism topics. I've looked at templates on fascism and communism and there seems to be no problem because the individuals listed are open adherents of the movements covered in those templates. For example, the communism template doesn't include Alger Hiss whom some historical believe is a communist. Only open adherents are listed. In the Template:Racism topics we have a mix of those who admit to adhering to racialist theories or proudly boast of being a racial supremacist and cases where the individual/group denies such tendencies. Here almost all the individuals/groups deny being Islamophobic. Without broad across-the-board sourcing or an explicit admission we should withhold adding these names to the template. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a wider issue and continued the discussion on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Please join me there. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Individuals is a different case due to BLP issues. Biased sources should not be used anywhere on Wikipedia so that should not be an issue either. // Liftarn (talk)
I gather there has already been discussions and a consensus to omit organizations as well as individuals: NPV board and bias categories. Jason from nyc (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Can you please provide links to the discussions where this 'consensus' can be found. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I embedded (piped) the link and it wasn't obvious: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_9#Bias_categories. Also notice the statement at the head of all the bias category as the result of the discussion: This category is for issues relating to Anti-Catholicism. It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly anti-Catholic. (from Category:Anti-Catholicism). Jason from nyc (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok, good to know if we want to add anything to Category:Anti-Catholicism, but not relevant here. // Liftarn (talk)
Sigh, it’s a policy applied uniformly with similar statements with respect to Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Islamic, and Arabic bias categories. Jason from nyc (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Clearly longstanding consensus holds that both individuals and organizations should be omitted from templates, categories, and lists as per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_9#Bias_categories and discussed above and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Branding_individuals_as_bigots_via_Templates (see section "Both individuals and organizations omitted"). I will remove organizations. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I've put them back. You don't have consensus. Dougweller (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think it is appropriate to apply this template to articles on either individuals or organizations. It is more a matter of template scope than anything else. I see a similarity between the scope of this template and the scope of Template:Criminology and penology... we use that template to link articles about a conceptual/academic topic area (criminology), not for linking articles on individuals or groups who were involved in a crime (criminals). Similarly this template should link articles about Islamiphobia (as a conceptual/academic topic)... and not articles on individuals or groups that are/were Islamiphobic (ie Islamiphobes). Blueboar (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Jason from nyc and Blueboar. We need consistent criteria for these "bias templates" and not biased criteria for subsuming individuals and organizations under these templates. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
In that case you are going to have to treat the Antisemitism template the same way, and I expect to see you all over there stating that Stormfront and Jew Watch should be removed. Blueboar, I just can't follow your analogy. This is similar to Antisemitism, not chriminology, forensic psychology, or any other academic field of study. Dougweller (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, we are concerned here with the Islamophobia template. The community consensus is clear that bias categories and templates do not contain individuals and organizations. If you challenge this, please go to the relevant boards. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Please do not claim that a consensus exist when it don't. It is not good sport. // Liftarn (talk)
There is a longstanding consensus against people and organizations in bias categories as I pointed out above. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_9#Bias_categories Jason from nyc (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you haven't noticed but a) this is a template, not a category and b) we don't include people for obvious BLP reasons. Please stop inventing things out of thin air. // Liftarn (talk)

I agree with Jason and Blueboar, it is good to see some progress in my absence. How about the "Specific incidents" section? Why can't we just fill it with everything listed at Islamophobic incidents? There looks to be no agreed inclusion critera and seven events listed are extremely different in nature and worldwide coverage.--Loomspicker (talk) 13:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a RFC about the inclusion of individuals and organizations in bias templates here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
What was the result? Jason from nyc (talk)

POV template

Template:POV is intended only for use in articles, as is clearly explained in the template documentation of the page. Please do not add it to this template. Thanks. Formerip (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Recent close of Village pump (policy) RfC: "Should organisations be included in templates such as Islamophobia, Racism and anti-Semitism"

I've recently closed an RfC mentioning this template. The RfC was archived, so I thought it best to notify interested editors here. Thanks, I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion may be seen here:
Jethro's close is a superb example of careful consideration of all points, letting go of the unimportant ones, and finding the right balance. Binksternet (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I think Jethro considered the main concerns of both sides. Rather than the promiscuous power to include to exclude on the slightest grounds, he gave reasonable criteria. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

I am going to remove the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article from the template per extremely strong BLP concerns. There is a clear BLP issue regarding Westergaard, somewhat less clear regarding the editors of Jyllandsposten. And the BLP concern is extremely severe as both Jyllandsposten and Westergaard have been living under strict security regime ever after the controversy due to persisent terror threats; Westergaard has experienced a murder attack in his home and numerous people in at least three countries (Denmark, USA, Norway) have been convicted for planning terror attacks against Jyllandsposten and/or Westergaard. There is obviously no agreement that the drawings were islamophobic; in Northern Europe that's in many ways a minority view or almost fringe view (Westergaard has for instance been honored as a free speech advocate by Angela Merkel). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Islamophobia/Archive_2&oldid=1138971090"