The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. Editors were divided in roughly equal numbers between retention and deletion, but the crucial point was that made by JonFlaune, who pointed to the deletion of the parallel Category:Islamophobia in Israel and all the other Islamophobia by region categories. Given that the conflict in Israel/Palestine in largely delineated on Islamic/Jewish lines, it would be a breach of WP:NPOV to retain one of this category pair but not the other. That problem applies equally to all the other categories in Category:Antisemitism by country or region, and ordinarily I would recommend a wider discussion of the whole of that set in order ensure consistency. However, WP:NPOV is a core content policy, and should not be trumped by procedural considerations. The resulting anomaly of the continued existence of other antisemitism-by-region categories may be considered in a separate discussion. Editors may also wish to consider whether an Category:Opposition to Judaism category should be created to parallel Category:Anti-Islam, and whether any such category should have a specific subcat for Palestine. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: POV category. Category:Islamophobia in Israel was just deleted[1], and then so should this category. Otherwise we will have a striking example of racist and POV double standard. JonFlaune (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I agree that the deletion of the Islamophobia categories was wrong and did not reflect a policy-based discussion, tit-for-tat won't get us anywhere. The Israel category was deleted because the closing admin read the consensus as deleting all categories called "Islamophobia," not because there was a problem categorizing incidents in Israel, so perhaps you can create "Opposition to Islam in Israel" and populate it with the contents of the former category. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a much stronger category than the "Islam and antisemitism" category below, since it focuses on a geographic region. It's possible that the whole Category:Antisemitism by country or region tree could be deleted, but not this one by itself. As per the Israel category, there was an empty category called Category:Islamophobia in Israel. I deleted it because it was empty, but if anyone knows that it was emptied preemptively, let's create Category:Opposition to Islam in Israel and populate that.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for demonstrating why you cannot "close" a discussion on an issue on which you hold a strong POV. Er, the category wasn't "empty". It was the ones systematically sabotaging the islamophobia categories who deleted it from various articles. If we are to have Category:Opposition to Islam in Israel instead of Category:Islamophobia in Israel, then we are going to move Category:Antisemitism in Palestine to Category:Opposition to Judaism in Palestine (or perhaps Category:Opposition to Zionism in Palestine) JonFlaune (talk) 23:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because I deleted a category that was empty, I hold a strong POV on the subject? Wow, that is a bizarre claim. I said specifically that if there were articles that should be in a Category:Opposition to Islam in Israel, they should be in there. I just don't know which ones those are. If you have information on that, create Category:Opposition to Islam in Israel and put articles in there.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't empty, that's a made up claim. If it was technically empty at the time, it was only because you people had sabotaged it. You can't first empty a category, then claim it "was empty". You are the one who deleted a perfectly adequately populated category on "Islamophobia in Israel", while voting to keep "Antisemitism in Palestine", hence demonstrating a striking double standard and a strong POV on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, and the broader topic of Islam/Islamophobia/Zionism (both Islamophobia and Antisemitism are equally recognised terms, e.g. by the UN and EU). Now you also want to have extremist groups like Kach in a category with the extremist POV title "Opposition to Islam in Israel". It's extremely hard to interpret such a category title as anything else than an endorsement of the extremist views of the groups in question, e.g. Kach, by portraying their racist views as legitimate "criticism of Islam" (a fringe view) instead of prejudice/hatred against Muslims (the mainstream view). Which is why mainstream Norwegian newspapers recently reported on Breivik sympathizers waging a war on the Islamophobia related articles in the English Wikipedia (specifically mentioning attempts to portray islamophobia as "legitimate criticism of Islam"), and Wikimedia Norway's President encouraging people to counter such Islamophobic POV pushing. More news coverage can be the outcome if this unacceptable situation isn't resolved quickly. Labelling islamophobia "opposition to Islam" is racist, politically extreme and WP:FRINGE. JonFlaune (talk) 12:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"You people"? Which people do you mean?--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You people like in the Anti-Category:Islamophobia camp, or the "It is possible to criticise Islam for what it actually does to other people and religions worldwide" camp if you want (or the "let's have 2,000 categories for antisemitism, such as "Antisemitism in Palestine", but let's call islamophobia "legitimate cricism of Islam" and ignore scholarly discourse and mainstream opinion and disrupt every attempt to have meaningful, non-politically extreme categories for islamophobia based on mainstream and scholarly discourse" camp). The category was not empty last time I checked. JonFlaune (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are attributing to me both a bias I do not have, and an action I did not do. I will say it again: I have no idea what articles were emptied out of the Israel category, if any. If you know what articles were emptied out of that category, say so.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For example the category included Kach and Kahane Chai, an anti-Arab hate group banned in Israel "by the Israeli cabinet under 1948 anti-terrorism laws [16] following statements in support of Baruch Goldstein's massacre of 29 Palestinians". I do not remember all the contents of the category because it's impossible to keep track when various people remove the contents of a larger hierarchy of categories. Is a "massacre of Palestinians" "opposition to Islam"/"criticism of Islam", or is it Islamophobia, hatred against Muslims? JonFlaune (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A majority of voters seem to believe it is indeed opposition to it. But regardless, what you seem to have missed is that the majority of voters do not want an Islamophobia category, but they might be persuaded to have a Category:Anti-Muslim terrorist attacks category. Have you considered proposing that?--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you have misunderstood something. "decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis on consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule" (WP:NOTAVOTE). Specifically, unsourced WP:IDONTLIKEIT, "it is right to hate Islam" personal opinions etc. from users who are obvious POV pushers, users displaying big Israeli flags in place of the Wikipedia logo on their user page and whatnot, does not count. Policy-based and sourced arguments count. The consensus was to keep the category, as all policy-based "votes" (not actually votes) supported the category. What you seem to have missed is that the consensus of the discussion was to keep the categories, by the majority of editors taking part in policy based discussion, as opposed to worthless and irrelevant WP:IDONTLIKEIT. An even if taking the WPIDONTLIKE fringe pushers into account, there was no consensus to delete the categories, so it was a mere case of you enforcing your own opinion against a clear consensus. JonFlaune (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're clearly not going to be convinced by me, and there's really no point hashing it out here. Let's see what the DRV brings. I'm sure that if enough people agree with you, things will change.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete As my father says, "the problem with the Promised Land is that it has been promised to too many people." It's impossible to distinguish in most, maybe all of these articles between anti-religious prejudice and political conflict over who gets the land. Mangoe (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This category is a gathering of some incidents in Palestine's modern history, not so much related to anti-Semitism, with the exception of the 1834 attack on Safed, but rather anti-Zionism. It also includes unrelated general categories like "Massacres in Israel", "Massacres in Palestine" and "Hamas." If this category is not deleted, those items should be removed regardless. The idea of the category itself is also problematic and serves as a gateway to other POV categories covering anti-Christian, anti-Druze or anti-Muslim incidents in Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, etc. which were much more numerous than attacks against the Jewish inhabitants of these places. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable category.Antisemitism exist in Palestine like in other geographic Area.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep actually the only POV here is the nomination itself. Why exactly the fact that we have anti-Islam and antisemitic categories shows some sort of bias is still beyond me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Apparently a discussion on this category is needed per [2]. These two categories must be considered together. JonFlaune (talk) 21:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As the nominator of the category below, I don't think they need to be considered together. But I do agree that the Scholars of Islamophobia discussion might give us some reason to rename this one, since it's a very wide-ranging subject.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For your information, I am the nominator, and I as the nominator think we are going to have a discussion on this category. JonFlaune (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By "the category below," I meant the "Scholars of Islamophobia" category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Well-defined category (both per se and per wikipedia category structure) for a well-established subject. Nomination without merit. Islamophobia irrelevant. A category must be discussed in terms of its own pros and cons. - Altenmann >t 04:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep .There is clearly WP:POINT nomination.No real rationale for deletion was presented--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep. No reason advanced for deletion. Established category with a main article, several subcats, 50+ direct articles, etc. Hmains (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and hide the china. JonFlaune's on a rampage. __meco (talk) 23:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a long and clearly recognized use of the term. The attempt to remove it seems to be moved by trying to prove a totally different point, not by any real views on this issue, and seems to be brought up by someone who in fact does not really support this move, but is proposing it merely because they think it is in general agreement with another move that they oppose and want to try and prove by this it was incorrect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Islamophobic POV category that must be deleted per previous precedent[3]. It seems to exist only to imply a relationship between Islam and what is now known in Wikipedia as "opposition to Judaism". JonFlaune (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No need to delete on principle (see also Category:Christianity and antisemitism), but heavily prune contents. The category must not be used to link all antisemitic incidents in which Muslims were involved in order to suggest that they were motivated by Islam (rather than nationalism issues or less contemporary political struggles, or the "he's just a troubled loner" that you get whenever the shooter's white). For instance, country categories must be removed; articles where an incident involving a Jew and a Muslim is labeled antisemitic without any real indication of it being so (Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf for instance); and articles on very general topics in which antisemitism is not a significant part of the article (eg. Nation of Islam - we have a spinoff article on NoI and antisemitism, which would belong) and thus unsuitable (and for that matter, where Islam is not! eg. International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust). As well, if I recall correctly, the last big discussion on bias-related categories said that we must remove BLPs who are in the category because they are perceived to hold that bias. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that this is an unmaintainable category, because it groups political attacks with hate crimes and possibly some actions unrelated to bias. Regardless of my Islamophobia decision, this is an extremely shaky category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Established category with two main articles, many subcats, 55+ direct articles, etc. Necessary and obvious complement to Category:Christianity and antisemitism based on actual historical events. POV not apparent except in this nomination. Hmains (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a well established category. The claim that NoI does not belong here is just bizarre. That group is inherently permeated with antisemitism and to pretend otherwise is to ignore reality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. This category uses the most widely-used term for the topic, and the topic is quite distinct from the study of Islam itself. The argument made below that this title encourages a specific point of view applies equally to Category:Scholars of antisemitism, discussed further up this page, and the editor who asserted that argument inconsistently argued for the antisemisum category on the grounds that there is "a long and clearly recognized use of the term". If editors feel that these words are loaded, they may wish to consider a renaming of both categories, but it is a breach of WP:NPOV to retain one of this pair of commonly-used terms but not the other. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The category was kept in the previous discussion where the consensus, counting policy-based arguments, was to keep the categories. Scholars of Islamophobia are not Islamic studies scholars, that's something else entirely. JonFlaune (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion-on-principle, but I'm not sure how many articles would go into it. We should try to populate it and see - I added an article myself. I agree with JonFlaune that an upmerge to Islamic studies is incorrect - Islamic studies is about Islam and Muslims, while scholars of Islamophobia study non-Muslims! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the Islamophobia decision is upheld on WP:DRV, what would you call this category?--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh there is a DRV, thanks for the link. I don't know what it should be called - you see, there's a nice snappy word for hatred of Muslims and Islam, what could it be... –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I troubled you with my question, Roscelese.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was being a bit snarky, but in all honesty any phrasing for this category that used the whitewash-y non-standard "opposition to Islam" would be very clunky. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that in this case, it comes up short.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Scholars of Anti-Islam or something to that effect. The current term is inherently advocating a specific point of view. Just because something is "snappy" does not mean it is legitimate or useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Although narrow now, but the subcategory is a customary one in wikipedia and reasonably defined by subject. - Altenmann >t 17:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First, I agree with those above who object to the merge into Category:Islamic studies scholars. This is sociology while "Islamic studies" seems to be oriented towards religion. If I'm wrong these authors should be included there. There seems to be a need for a sociology category--something like "Muslims in Europe". A sub-category can be created for "writers on Muslims in Europe". Both problems and successes can be found from such a category. Or if there is a need, a sub-category on "challenges" can be created. Wouldn't this structure be more useful? Jason from nyc (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ("Scolars" is an accepted term and so is "Islamophobia") and expand. Category:Islamic studies scholars is obviously incorrect since it's an entirely different field of study. Per WP:CAT"When naming a category, one should be particularly careful and choose its name accurately." so we should use the most accurate name also "Topic categories are named after a topic (usually sharing a name with the Wikipedia article on that topic)." and the main article on the subject is islamophobia. // Liftarn (talk)
Upmerge. with only two entries I think the best solution would be to upmerge to Category:Islamic studies scholars (perhaps upmerge is not the correct term as this is not presebntly a parent to the nominated category?) and find another, perhaps less specific, category for the hatred/criticism part. __meco (talk) 10:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Medalists at World Gymnastics Championships[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: As World Gymnastics Championships states, there are five separate World Gymnastics Championships events, and this category says it is only for those who win medals at the Artistic championships. Courcelles 18:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, you're likely right. Courcelles 03:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. While it is possible to make an airship-related list which isn't a list of airships, these are all lists of airships.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename all. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Kamerun. At present, this is in a tree with a single article. Until we have enough articles to warrant splitting by year, we should not do so. At worst the target should be Category:1900s in Kamerun, which will still perhaps only have one member, but I am not clear whether there are other categories that may need to be merged to it. Peterkingiron (talk)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
