Category talk:Anti-Islam sentiment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Categories for discussion This category was nominated for deletion, renaming or merging with another category on 2006 December 27.

The result of the discussion was keep.
Categories for discussion This category was nominated for deletion, renaming or merging with another category on 2007 February 27.

The result of the discussion was no consensus.
This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

Contents

[edit] June 2006

I've begun this category after this CfR discussion. Before this category is populated though, clear and well sourced criteria (remember WP:NOR) need to be added to it to explain which articles qualify for categorization under it. Netscott 02:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that it's currently being populated with the wrong kind of articles. A lot Critics of Islam has been added to it, and I believe it would make more sense to categorize them under a new category with a more obvious and neutral name such as Category:Critics of Islam. The current title is not neutral when it is used in the articles re Islam critics because it indicate that their opinions about Islam is based more on feelings rather than on logic and reason. -- Karl Meier 05:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I also just noticed that this category is actually a subcategory to the Category:Prejudices. That makes it even more biased to add it to articles regarding Critics of Islam such as Ibn Warraq and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I will start the work on fixing this problem. -- Karl Meier 05:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree with Karl Meier. Pecher Talk 08:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I too agree that Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Ibn Warraq don't belong in this category. But see individuals like Ali Sina correctly listed here when such individuals talk about Muhammad being a child molester pedophile and whose "criticism" is sooner exemplary of "hate". Netscott 08:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
That's your opinion, but that doesn't make it NPOV. I don't think we got any reason to believe that Ali Sina or many of the other people that has been added would agree that their criticism of Islam is based more on feelings rather than on logic and reason, and it is not up to us to make any final judgements. -- Karl Meier 16:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Ibn Warraq also talks about Muhammad's having sex with a child in fairly strong terms. The dychotomy between criticism and anti-something sentiment is almost always unverifiable and almost certainly unwikipedic. Pecher Talk 08:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Professor Edward Said has a different view:

In a seminal essay on "Islam Through Western Eyes," Professor Edward Said of Columbia University wrote, "I have not been able to discover any period in European or American history since the Middle Ages in which Islam was generally discussed or thought about outside a framework created by passion, prejudice and political interests.

Also,

Said is best known for describing and critiquing "Orientalism," which he perceived as a constellation of false assumptions underlying Western attitudes toward the East.

interesting? --Aminz 08:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Pecher, again from this CfR discussion numerous individuals expressed that a category like this was needed. From the discussion on this talk page it's clear the criteria for inclusion in this category needs to be further expanded. Netscott 09:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
If the criteria for inclusion is to be expanded, then it has to be renamed to an NPOV title. Currently, with the present title, it is just an excuse to push a POV regarding a number of Critics of Islam, if we add it to these articles. -- Karl Meier 16:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The name is as neutral as the Anti-Semitism category. BhaiSaab talk 16:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah... WP:Point. I suspected that. -- Karl Meier 16:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Karl Meier I do agree with you generally. As I have been explaining to BhaiSaab this category is generally not meant to be used on articles that cover critics of Islam. I also explained to him that I understand your and User:Pecher's efforts to remove this category in light of the fact that it was being blanket applied to articles covering critics. In all honestly relative to this category things just need to slow down and cool off. When editors are blanket applying it to articles it doesn't appear as though thought has gone into it's utilization and utilization of this type of category definitely requires the usage of thought and research. Netscott 16:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean, Karl? BhaiSaab talk 16:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Netscott: I agree with what you say, and just want to add that any possible future use of this category also require that we mind NPOV, and is very strict about it. -- Karl Meier 16:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
BhaiSaab: I added an internal link. Click on it. -- Karl Meier 16:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not proving a point experimentally. I don't have a point in the first place. BhaiSaab talk 16:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't Ann Coulter a safe bet for this category? Her rhetoric goes past mere 'criticism'. His Excellency... 17:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ann Coulter's "criticism" is a provocative joke that shouldn't be taken too seriously. You know it, I know it and she herself have said so. Those who believe otherwise needs a head-examination. MX44 04:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This category

Do we require this category? It looks highly unusual. Should we single out a religion to create a category against that religion. I fail to understand any rationale for the same. Some one please enlighten me. --Bhadani 12:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, is this category an example of original research under the shelter of No Original Research, which some of us may have done through the medium of discussion on a wikipedia page? Really strange! --Bhadani 13:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello Bhadani, welcome to the discussion. Have you gotten a chance to see this CfR discussion yet? Netscott 20:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello Netscott! Long time, no see ... Anyway, I agree with Bhadani that this category appears to be a fine example of Islamopedianism. It rubs in the views of the zealot hardliners, those who adore the jihad-by-the-sword, and advocates that otherwise reasonable Muslims must feel offended and side with them in their quest for supremecy. But think about it: Nobody is calling criticism of Ku Klux Klan anti-Christian or criticism of Hitler anti-Democratic. Criticism of Baader/Meinhof isn't called anti-Socialistic either and criticism of Vegetarians isn't called anti-Hinduism (and I could go on and on ...)
The naming of the category is overly broad and needs to be adjusted to reflect the reasons for its inclusion. MX44 05:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC) I
BTW: Why is Doudou Diène included? That article is a stub with no information whatsoever! Judging from that example, it appears that this category is not only Original Research, but actually no research at all! Random blathering I would say. MX44 05:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I echo MX44's comments here. The criticism of the KKK is not anti-Christian, and criticism of Muslim extremists is not anti-Islam. I have removed David Horowitz, Doudou Diène, and Ghazal Omid; these inclusions appear to be nothing but POV pushing. — coelacan talk — 17:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Some other strange additions, at least one of which makes no apparent sense: [1] [2] [3] — coelacan talk — 04:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Intresting that these comments wouldnt be added to antisemitism. Isnt that a form of racism against a specific religion?--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 13:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this classed under "Racism"?

Islam is not a race, so how can sentiment against it be classified as racist? And anti Arabism is not exclusively directed by anti Islam sentiment Lord Patrick 08:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

See Social interpretations of race Raphael1 21:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Establishing guidelines for this category

Content is being deleted here because no exact guidelines exists to determine what or who should be listed. That means we now have to work on building consensus as to what goes here. The AFD shows that the vast majority of people voting for a 'keep' on this cat did so because of the precedence of an 'antisemitism' category. It should follow then that this category should echo that category in terms of content. In that category, the guideline mentions that people can be listed if there is notable content stating the individual is antisemitic. That's not a bad policy to adopt here. Other guidelines suggest there and in anti-catholicism, and other such articles, should also suggest how we deal with content here. Falcon2020 02:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

From the category for antisemitism: This category's significance when added to an article about a specific person relates to notable and reliable references mentioning antisemitism in regards to that person. For individuals that are generally recognized as being antisemitic see Category:Anti-Semitic people. Falcon2020 02:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The point is we don't want people dismissing criticism of islam as islamophobia. Critics of Islam and topics related to criticism of islam should not be put into this category. Doing so is inherently POV. Besides, we don't have a Category:Anti-Athiest sentiment, Category:Anti-Buddhist sentiment or Category:Anti-Hindu sentiment.--Sefringle 06:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
There is an ongoing effort to add critics of islam and islamist groups to this category with an attempt to add individuals to the scope of this category. This does not seem to be the intention of this category so I've removed "people" and once again narrowed the scope. Kyaa the Catlord 10:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not your place to def the intention of this cat, this is wiki pedia and it is developed by editors, You are one editor fighting to protect a POV. If people are racist against Muslims, then there is no moral reason to object to this cat, you cannot go to antisemitism and say it only applies to organizations. You cannot have this kind of imbalance. and being reflective of the world anti-Athiest isnt a significant group, neither is anti-Shinto, and if someone added this cat, it would be valid. Wikipedia must reflect balance and cannot be the politic ground of one group. --HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 11:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not just my opinion. This is consensus. Read this page, the majority of statements on this page reflect the consensus that this is not meant to be used to label individuals due to OR and NPOV concerns. Kyaa the Catlord 11:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
My friend this is Wiki, there is no concensus which is rule of law, so let me debunk that myth first. A poorly informed or motivated concensus among a choir is invalid. Not saying that is the case, But wiki is dynamic. If antisemitic can be used and not considered OR or NPOV then so 2 can this cat. You cannot justify people making hostile anti-Islamic statements and wish to use wiki to whitewash bigotry, this is very very disturbing because we are not confusing critic we hatred. meaning critic is one thing anti-Islamic sentiment means just that. These bigoted statements if said about Jews would not be excused. so show balance and allow this cat to be developed. "Islam is evil" is it a POV, OR, to say that someone making that statement is not a racist just like saying "Jews are evil" or "black poeple are evil"?--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 11:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, wiki is dynamic. But your edit wars on Ann Coulter betrays a tendancy to ignore consensus even when it is blatantly obvious. Kyaa the Catlord 11:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I dont like edit war but are you telling me someone saying "we should bomb the muslims and convert them to Christianity" is a nice person, a mere critic of Islam? I think when non-Muslims assemble on a Islamic issue, or non-Jews assemble on a Jewish issue, there is a violation of balance. I dont claim to represent Islam but i can say i represent fairness (as i c it). Ayan Somali girl is botha critic and anti-Islam however next girl Ann is not a critic per her bio, she is blatently hostile to Muslims. And looking at teh current "crusade" it is only fair.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 11:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Please see WP:NPOV. Applying a category as a label in the name of fairness? This is a POV argument. Kyaa the Catlord 11:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I know all about WP:NPOV I still dont see how a man saying "Islam is Evil" is in a cat called Critic of Islam, by your above argument Critic of Islam is a violation of WP:NPOV from a logical perspective why is critic not a problem and anti_islamic a problem. Anti, we understand, Isalm we understand sentiment we understand, So i dont see the issue as any violation. If the cat was called Blood Bigot then i would agree with you. agains "islam is evil" is a very clear opinion. " bomb them and convert them" is very clear as well, clearly she wouldnt be visiting any Mosque anytime soon.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 11:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
This does not mesh with the NPOV policy which states "Let the facts speak for themselves". Labelling persons is drawing a conclusion and in doing so you violate the NOR policy by "introducing an analysis or synthesis of published facts, opinions, or arguments in a way that advances a position favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reliable source who has published the material in relation to the topic of the article." We must follow the policies of Wikipedia. Kyaa the Catlord 12:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay then validate any category? If this argumen is correct justify Critic of Islam, or antisemitic or any cat for that matter. The threshold cannot be held up so high to exclude valid cats, yet include others.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 12:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
"Critic" is a neutral term. Defining, categorizing and labelling someone as "anti-islam" draws a conclusion without citing sources. Kyaa the Catlord 13:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this section so empty?

Take a look at another religions section on anti- so why in our time of wash your mouth on Islam is this section so sparse? Where is David Duke, where is Sharon, where is the somali woman in Dutch land, where is rushdie?--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 12:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Sentiment

Sentiment See definition. Anti (means against) Islam (religion of Muslims which makes them Muslims) Sentiment, a feeling, opinion etc. This is not restricted to organizations. thus this section needs to be expanded. Critic of Islam is like saying "Islam has a male centric biased", "Islam has inhumane policies towards the death penalty". However "Islam is evil" is not a critic, "Muslims should be wipped out and converted to Christianity" is not a critic. "Muhammed was a sex offender" is not a critic. "Muslims are terrorist" is not a critic. So this section is not about observed critic of Islam, like "The Quran and Hadith contradict themselves" it is about people who have used hostile language towards Muslims. And in our current climate this cat is 100% valid.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 11:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above points. There is a clear distinction between criticising something which exists in Islam, e.g. capital punishment, and using words which are hateful, or disingenious. if somebody says that islam promotes murder, child abuse, rape, forced marriage, and all sundry of evil things, this is clearly not the case. Such people should be categorised as having anti-Islam sentiment, because they do. People like Miss Hirsi have been found to fabricate things within Islam, and then criticise them as if they exist in Islamic theology or law as opposed to what some Muslim societies practise as local culture, e.g. forced marriage, and female genital mutilation. People like her should be categorised as having anti-Islamic sentiments, otherwise next we will be saying that the BNP are not racists, just critics of Islam.

On another note, there are people who falsely claim that a number of Muslim activist groups are terroristm even though they are not listed as such by the US or western governments. These types of people also need to categorised as such, because they play on stereotypes to cause a general feeling of antipathy againts Muslims. Aaliyah Stevens 11:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This does not mesh with the NPOV policy which states "Let the facts speak for themselves". Labelling persons is drawing a conclusion and in doing so you violate the NOR policy by "introducing an analysis or synthesis of published facts, opinions, or arguments in a way that advances a position favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reliable source who has published the material in relation to the topic of the article." We must follow the policies of Wikipedia. Kyaa the Catlord 11:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Again and again you fail to prove your case, there is no "let the facts speak for themselves" If Farrakhan says "Jews are ..." he is listed as antiSemitic, If George Galloway is a non-drinker, he is listed as such, he is anti-Zionism he is in that cat, All writers are in a writers cat. 3 editor have spoken. It is unbalance to ignore a group of people who have a strong anti-Islamic slant, who can say anything. Constant deletion of racist individuals is very disturbing. We label people every day, we say she is white or black, republican, pro-war, anti-war these do not confirm to your above argument. if your argument is valid all cats would have to be deleted as or.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 12:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Start the list

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion.
This article has been tagged since February 2007.

I think it is vile to whitewash bigorty. these people's try cat is constantly being deleted by certain editors, when many editor keep readding it. They say sentiment doesnt apply to people. I looked up the word sentiment and i dont see that point.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 13:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Jesse Lee Peterson‎, Islam is evil

Ann Coulter, They should be bombed and converted to Christianity

Ayan Ali, Warned by a European court for her anti-Islamic statements

Many other editors? You and a bunch of socks of George have been disrupting Ann Coulter. Same thing with Jesse Lee Peterson and Ayan Ali does not exist. Please.... Kyaa the Catlord 13:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Refrain from violating civility, It is clear i am no sockpuppet, u have failed in builing an argument, lets agree on that. Sentiment argument failed, NPOV argument failed. what is left?--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 13:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I said a bunch of sock of GeorgeBP, not that you are a sock. I'm done feeding this... Kyaa the Catlord 13:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok my mistake, but you do seem to be rallying a crew together [[4]] many thanks.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 13:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Look! WP:KETTLE [5] Kyaa the Catlord 13:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Well on that point, i c your point! lol --HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 13:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Holding doubleplusungood un-Peecee opinions does not make one a bigot. Anti semitism is a well agreed and defined term. "Islamophobia" is not. Hirsi Ali is a woman with personal experience of how Islam treats people of her gender. Her criticisms are based on logic and fact, unless you think the Qur'an and Hadith are not truely Islamic documents. As such, she is not just blind sentiment. Her criticism is based on logic. The only reason she's been attacked by some court is due to the fact they cannot discern the difference between legitimate criticism and blind emotion. Lord Patrick 22:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
well my friend as master yoda has instructed us, Pain Leads to suffering, and suffering leads to the dark side. Miss Ali is a critic and a bigot at the same time, she is so full of hate she has become hate. I actually feel sorry for her. Her local experience in a culture is not a valid or objective bases for critic a religion. A stay in G-bay in Cuba is a poor relection of America it however isnt an objective or worldview of the American experience. basically her horror doesnt typify the religion. her uneducated cultural taboos mixed with Islam have confused her, now she is a vessel of hate. --HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 00:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Hate spawns hate. You hate her, she hates you. Its a never ending story. Enjoy the darkside.... Kyaa the Catlord 00:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
"Vessel of hate"? There is a huge difference between saying things like "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity" (Coulter) and "Mohammad was a sex offender" (he had sex with children, as per the Hadiths )http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/008.smt.html#008.3310,http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/062.sbt.html#007.062.064,http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/062.sbt.html#007.062.065,http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/062.sbt.html#007.062.088) (thank you to Ali Sina for the links). Someone who has sex with children would indeed be a sex offender in modern society. Even soliciting sex from teenagers is looked down upon, much less outright sex with CHILDREN. So unless you regard the Hadith as an inaccurate text, going against centuries of Islamic jurisprendary tradition, Mohammad would indeed be a sex offender in our modern times.

While commiting FGM may not be mentioned in the Quran, Islam is not respectful to women (4:34, for example, commands men to beat disobedient wives). Lord Patrick 02:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

I'm interested in creating a page about the history of Islam/Christian hatred. Having a background in the Arabic language and in Medieval European culture, there are several interesting points to explore (keep in mind these are medieval ideas):

  • Christian association of Arabs with polygamy
  • Arab association of Christians with alcoholism and lechery
  • Mutual willingness of both sides to kill the other (heathens, unbelievers)

... and so on. I'm just interested in what would come up. Also, understanding the past could shed light on the current debate in this category. Are there any who can add to this idea? Wrad 07:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/n/t/Category_talk%7EAnti-Islam_sentiment_490e.html"