Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Keep. Some of the "delete" voters seem to be confusing documentation of stereotypes (as is proper for an encyclopedia, being a tertiary source), with the stereotypes themselves. Splitting is possible (but too complex to decide here). —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 10:53Z 

Stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

POV pushing topic. This is another attempt to dismiss Criticism of Islam as racism. Sefringle 00:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect if possible to salvage the data. --Dennisthe2 00:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Some background: this is an article originally split from Ethnic stereotypes in American media with sister pages Stereotypes of Asians, Stereotypes of Africans/Blacks, Stereotypes of Latinos, Stereotypes of Europeans/Whites, and Stereotypes of American Indians.  Stereotypes of this population exist and have been academically studied and should have an entry in this encyclopedia.  Bias is not a grounds for deletion according to the Deletion policy, and can be corrected. I strongly disagree with your above statement. The purpose of this article isn't to claim that it's racist to criticize Islam. It is a fact that Arabs & Muslims are stereotyped. This stereotyping is the subject of the article. Whether or not you wish to consider the racial profiling & stereotyping discussed in the article to be racism is your business.  --Drenched 01:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Drenched. The article is of the type "Stereotypes of ..." and is distinct different from Criticisms of Islam.  The article is well-sourced, NPOV, and NOR--it does not itself make any claim of racism and only documents the statements/analyses of various published sources.  Black Falcon 01:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. While the general decision to split up stereotyping content into various "Stereotypes of..." articles may or may not have been a good one, once the general decision was made, lots of individual "Stereotypes of..." articles follow, and it makes no sense to try to rehash the general decision by picking a few off individually and leaving the rest. The article could stand improvement, but the existence of stereotypes is notable from common knowledge. That said, it's questionable whether "Arabs and Muslims" should be combined, since the latter is a much larger group than the former. --Shirahadasha 01:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and Rename This article can be saved, but first it has to be seperated. As Shirahadasha points out, it makes no sense to combine "Arabs" and "Muslims" as not all Arabs are Muslim (Druze, Christian, Athiests, Agnostics, etc) and non-Arab Muslims probably outnumber Arab Muslims.  Ironicly, the title of the article reflects a stereotype.--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 03:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Although true that "not all Arabs are Muslim" or vice versa, the common stereotype (at least in the United States) is that they are. Although I am not opposed to seeing the separated, I don't think either one could be mentioned without noting the other.  As the article currently stands, it is in fact more about stereotypes against Arabs than Muslims, so perhaps "and Muslims" should be dropped from the title.  Also, I think "in the American media", "in Western popular culture" or something similar should be added to the title of this (and the other similar articles) as this is the actual focus of the article (the article does not, for instance, include stereotypes of Arabs among Israelis, among Africans, etc.).  Comments?  Black Falcon 03:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - The grouping of peoples & their stereotypes is very complex, and I see no obvious best way to organize these articles. I just wanted to mention that the possibly related page Stereotypes of South Asians also exists, split off from the Stereotypes of Asians page.  The current article used to be called Stereotypes of Near Easterners/Arabs because that's what the mother page's heading was called, but was renamed to the current title as per its discussion page.  Stereotyping is a complex issue first because there are so many layers of identity with regards to nationality and religion which each have their own stereotypes that may or may not overlap, and second because stereotypes are often created & perpetuated by ignorant people who mistakenly lump different identities together or substitute one for another.  I agree that a discussion regarding how best to organize these articles is definitely in order, although my first priority is to save this article from deletion.  --Drenched 04:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the title, the article should definitely be kept--I think the nomination was the result of a simple misunderstanding. I agree that the specific title is an issue for the talk page--the content and subject-matter pass WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:Notability, WP:NPOV, and WP:ENC, and that is what is really relevant at AfD.  Black Falcon 04:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. As this is a violation of WP:OR: Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. It is possible to make a similar article for every ethnic or religious group because for every group one will find something that will support their position. This article seems to select a few authors and films to make a statement. This càomment may be striked when it can be proven that there exist a substantial academic literature about this subject, rather than selecting a few authors to advance an opinion. Also it seems to be a good idea to differ between Muslims and Arabs, and between American and Western European societies. As many muslims and Arabs live in Western Europe, it is possible that e.g. films show a less stereotypical image, see for instance Gegen die Wand, which can hardly be claimed to be stereotypical. Sijo Ripa 13:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but split into two articles on Stereotypes of Arabs and Stereotypes of Muslims. There may well be substantial overlap between the two subjects, and many items may warrant discussion on both pages, but they ought to be distinct.  I suspect there already is a reasonable body of literature on the subject of these stereotypes to draw on.  The text now present here is a reasonable beginning.  - Smerdis of Tlön 15:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not relevant and could be seen as racist, even just by the title. Telly   addict Editor review! 16:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Could you please clarify what you mean? Not relevant to what?  Also, I'm genuinely curious as I can't see how the title could be viewed as racist--it makes no claim about the truth or falsity of the stereotypes.  The fact is that stereotypes exist and have been the source of much scholarly discussion.  I would appreciate your clarifications,  Black Falcon 18:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Why the heck are we giving people a place to air their stereotypes?  Unencyclopedic.  Philippe Beaudette 20:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not think the issue is one of airing stereotypes. The article presents a well-sourced summary of published works regarding the existence and character of these stereotypes.  It contains no attack statements and all but one statements are sourced (the sole unsourced sentence has been tagged with fact and does not present a stereotype).  Black Falcon 22:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate your passion, I'm not sure it's necessary to answer every delete with a comment... Philippe Beaudette 22:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note that the "every delete" you note amounts to a grand total of two. I sincerely hope the threshold for passion has not dropped so low for that would be a boring world indeed.  In the first case, I was curious as to how the article title may be perceived as racist.  In the second case, I commented regarding your unclear (at least to me) reason for deleting.  If you wish to clarify it, I would like to understand your position.  If you do not, that is your prerogative.  In any case, my passion or lack thereof is irrelevant to this AfD.  Cheers, Black Falcon 23:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge into Islam articles. Xiner (talk, email) 21:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, surprisingly the title is not "Arabs, Muslims and other Terrorists." Anyhow, unless we have somebody working on the suggestion by Smerdis of Tlön let's get rid of all the nonsense regarding Muslims being Terrorists and that you can recognise them by the Arab-like appearance. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 04:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I believe that you misunderstand the article; it isn't saying that all Muslims are terrorists etc. It's saying that the above misconception & related confusion of identities exists in the form of stereotypes. However, I agree that the organization of the article is messy now; I think if clearer headings are used (we can give stereotypes of Muslims and stereotypes of Arabs separate subheadings & define each identity) and a paragraph explicitly explaining how the stereotypes of each group are associated or how identities are mistaken by those stereotyping, the points made above about Arab vs. Muslim identity can be successfully addressed. --Drenched 04:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge with Criticism of Islam, otherwise it's just a neologism that's coming from less than saintly sources. Violates WP:NEO. IZAK 11:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "less than saintly", but an LA times article and an article by a Professor at Southern Illinois Universit are certainly reliable sources. Also, how is it a neologism--the term has been used by scholars, journalists, actors, directors, etc., etc., etc.?  And which part is a neologism--stereotypes?  That's just a descriptive word.  I would appreciate your clarifications, if you are so inclined.  Black Falcon 17:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions.   --   &rArr; bsnowball  15:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * keep per Shirahadasha, also nominator doesn't state any grounds for deletion. any problems with actual article are fixed by editing. &rArr; bsnowball  15:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Philippe Beaudette has I think misunderstood the article: it's not, so far as I can tell, aimed at perpetuating stereotypes, whether offensive or otherwise ( a couple of stereotypes that are not mentioned in the article are the rather positive ones that "Arab men are particularly able to (ahem) please women, both physically and otherwise", and that "Arab men make stern, but loving and devoted fathers" ). Rather, the aim of the article is to document the stereotypes, and provide a balanced view of them. I'd like to eliminate the smell of OR from the article, and it will of course need to be monitored carefully for balance and to ensure an NPOV tone, but that should not be beyond our collective wit. The topic is certainly notable. WMMartin 19:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Srong KEEP (but possibly stronger Cleanup) - this article's topic is filled with potential, and it is obviously an issue - but the fact that the only section has "belly dancers" in its title disturbs me. And since when did we start articles out with, "This article..." This is a very important issue and deserves to be on Wikipedia - it just needs to be of a higher quality given its importance. DanielFolsom T|C|U 20:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is very interesting topic. It may be POV just a little.Biophys 23:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.