|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Islamophobia template.|
|Archives: 1, 2, 3|
|This template is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This template was considered for deletion on 19 December 2011. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".|
|This template was considered for deletion on 10 August 2012. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".|
|This template was considered for deletion on 10 September 2013. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".|
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 December 19#Template:Islamophobia - result: no consensus.
Please stop spreading garbage like this and stop calling various individuals and organizations silly names such as "islamophobic". I am sure it is fun writing nonsens on a social media like this, but I am just so tired of seeing the internet being used as a trash can, by awful sites like Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I realize that it will be hard or impossible to argue neutrality here, since Wikipedia has a history of a very strong bias towards using the jargon of political correctness and cultural relativism as if it was objective, while clamping down on political terminology from the opposite camp. Our mission is, of course, not to use any propaganda term in Wikipedia's voice itself. But my experience is that an obvious propaganda term like "Islamophobia" (it never pretended to be anything else, and that's fair enough outside of a project dedicated to Neutrality) will be defended above neutral descriptions of the phenomenon. On the other hand, I was given an extremely hard time to even be allowed to discuss immigrant criminality, a perfectly objective and neutral term for a political topic, because the mere exercise of looking at the distribution of nationalities in statistics (done by first rate secondary sources) must be prevented because it somehow implies "racism". Since strong-armed to the hyper-neutral immigration and crime even though no, the two concepts are not looked at in splendid isolation, the topic is concerned to what extent and why the people who migrate end up with higher crime rates. There are many and complex reasons, but this is still what the article is discussing.
This is pathetic, and everyone here knows it is, but many people will still prefer to go with whatever in-group they feel allegiance to as long as they feel they have numerical superiority instead of gritting their teeth and opting to be neutral no matter what (as in "writing for the enemy").
Long story short, WP:N, get rid of the term "Islamophobia" used in Wikipedia's voice just like we avoid any other political neologism anywhere except in attributed quotes. It's as simple as that, and the principle cuts in every political way. Test yourself in this way: if you think that a term like "Islamophobia" can be used in Wikipedia's voice, you must be positively furious at the move of immigrant criminality to some made-up "less offensive" title. If you aren't, that's a sure sign that you are not editing neutrally but try to tilt the pedia towards your political agenda. (I know, of course your political preference is the only correct one, or you wouldn't have chosen it, but you will still be forced to recognize that this doesn't matter when you edit Wikipedia) --dab (𒁳) 15:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Apart from airing some conspiracy theories do you have a point? The term islamophobia is widely used in academia as have been proven over and over again. The question is do you want to change Template:Antisemitism so it says Criticism of Judaism and "Antisemitism". No? Double standards? // Liftarn (talk)
- This is Wikipedia, Liftarn. Wikipedia is neutral, and the people that you're calling this buzzword have reasons as to why they believe that, and unlike the Antisemites, they can back it up with statistics and reasons.
- The "widely used in academia"- remember, in America, there are collegiate institutions outside of the Mason-Dixon line that have pockets of Marxism and even ex-felons claiming to be from radial leftists (e.g. Weather Underground) -argument is a fallacy because you have not cited your sources. You know what else was once widely used in academia? The dunce hat. I'm not calling you a dunce, I'm trying to say that academia isn't a perfect gague of terminology, like the dictionary is.
- This isn't a series on "Islamic phobia", it's a series on the anti-Islam movement. Wouldn't "Islamicphobia" cover the actual and direct persecution of Muslims, such as grafitti on mosques, ham on their doorstep, and slurs?
- If anything, you could call this "Part of a series on Anti-Islamization" or "anti-Shariah" or "Islamic opposition", so on and so on, etc. etc. . Personally, I think the neutral "institutional criticism of Islam" or something is much more fair to Islam's opponents. -and don't compare this with Antisemitism. The last time I checked, Jews- in the modern day -didn't murder soldiers in the streets (UK), "honor-kill" their families (Arabic nations), fly planes into buildings (USA), persecute and arson minorities and their properties (Egypt), and form vigilante squads that go after people that are "too Western", as in Iran or Turkey.
- While you should include a link (examples: see also, miscellaneous, related topics) to Islamic phobia and Persecution of Muslims to a template covering the anti-Islamization movements, because they can spill into that, you should call organized opposition to Islam "Islamic phobia", unless you are willing to call the various anti-Christian leagues (e.g. Freedom From Religion) as "Christ-phobia".
- --18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Liftarn is a troll. I am replying for the benefit of interested third parties.
- The term islamophobia is widely used in academia as have been proven over and over again. The question is do you want to change Template:Antisemitism so it says Criticism of Judaism and "Antisemitism". No? Double standards?
the first claim is untrue. "Islamophobia" has been discussed in academia, because it is a problematic ideological term that cropped up in popular discourse over the last decade. No academic within their right mind would use it as if it was an objective descriptor. "as have been proven over and over again" doesn't even make any sense in English, so I'm not going to try and reply to it. Pretending that the term "Islamophobia" is on a par with "Antisemitism" is so plainly disingenious that I also do not think it merits a reply. There is, of course, a related debate on "criticism of Zionism/Israel" vs. "Antisemitism", and people debating in bad faith will often try to depict one as the other, but at least we have about 100 years of academic literature on the nature of Antisemitism, so this is a discussion that can actually be had.
The actual "double standards" on Wikipedia are the attempts to take one concept backed with decades and decades of academic literature, and a cranky neologism, and then pretend or demand that they should be treated on a par. see WP:RANDY. --dab (𒁳) 11:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- So the Islamophobia Studies Journal is what, not academics using the term as an objective descriptor? And the more than a dozen other academic sources brought up at Talk:Islamophobia/Archive_14#Proposal_to_rename_article_to_.22Anti-Islamic_sentiment.22 is what exactly? Finally, an admin shouldnt be opening their comments with a personal attack. nableezy - 15:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Again, you dont get to force through changes that were rejected in the past. You want to change the template get consensus to do so. Kind of simple. nableezy - 07:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- These edits were specifically rejected in an RFC, this is the title of the template and you cannot ignore it. No discussion coming from either of you either. nableezy - 13:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- To expand on that, there was an RFC to rename this template to "Anti-Islamic sentiment" here, concurrent with the same proposal at the article talk. That failed to gain consensus at either place. You cannot now just ram through those changes as though that discussion never happened, you have an obligation to gain consensus for that change. If you dont believe the term is used by mainstream academics then I really cant help you, the evidence provided at Talk:Islamophobia/Archive_14#Proposal_to_rename_article_to_.22Anti-Islamic_sentiment.22 pretty thoroughly debunked that claim, but if you would rather continue making patently, and proven, untrue statements well then I guess thats your choice. That does not however mean you control the template, your changes were discussed and rejected. nableezy - 13:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
It's pretty obvious that undue fear of and hostility toward Islam and its adherents exists to anyone who cruises the blogosphere. On the other hand, the term "islamophobia" has been badly abused to attempt to marginalize fair comment on some adherents of Islam and their acts (ISIS, et cetera, the President's absurd claim that "ISIS is not Islamic" to the contrary. They are to Islam what the radical white power movement is to Christianity, and the government of Myanmar is to Buddhism). Just on that basis, "islamophobia" is almost the prototype pejorative label addressed in WP:TERRORIST.
- Agree. "Islamophobia" is a rhetorical term to imply that criticism of Islam is inherently irrational. Officialising this rhetoric as a template grossly contravenes NPOV. Stringybark (talk) 09:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
A question was asked at BLPN. Was this templates placement in the IPT article a BLP violation? This was just closed Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Investigative_Project_on_Terrorism but it has not been archived yet. The close says yes there is a consensus that this is a BLP violation. The question of if Investigative Project on Terrorism inclusion on this template presents a BLP violation was asked. There was no consensus on this matter. The few comments on it suggest that it is not. However the situations do not actually differ. The inclusion of IPT here suggests that this is an Islamophobic organization just the same as the inclusion of the template on that page would. That is the reason for my removal of IPT from this template.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
2015-03 Central African Republic
Could Anti-balaka or Central African Republic conflict under the Djotodia administration be added in the template, under Specific incidents section? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)