Template talk:Criticism of Islam sidebar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New template needed for Controversies[edit]

Lets move the Events section that keeps getting removed to its original and rightful title: muslims and controversies.

Inclusion of Anders Behring Breivik[edit]

Anders Behring Breivik is certainly a notable critic of Islam. While he certainly is more known for carrying it out in action he did published a lengthy manifest about his thoughts on Islam and that has been the subject of much analysis. It also builds on ideas from other persons included here. // Liftarn (talk)

What reliable secondary sources discuss the criticism of Islam made by this individual? Johnuniq (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A quick googling for Breivik manifesto (the actual title "2083 - A European Declaration of Independence" gives less) gives about 6,400,000 results. Some examples[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] // Liftarn (talk)
Hi Liftarn. You conspicuously failed to answer Johnuniq's question, and your attempts to smear actual critics of Islam by associating them with an insane mass murderer won't actually work here. It would be much like listing Buford O. Furrow, Jr. and Naveed Afzal Haq as "Critics of Judaism". Breivik is well known as a mass murderer, not as a critic of Islam. Jayjg (talk) 15:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Breivik's main claim to fame is indeed his actions, but his manifesto is also well known. The question was "What reliable secondary sources discuss the criticism of Islam made by this individual?" and I think the list of sources I gave covers exactly that. // Liftarn (talk)
He is known as a mass murderer who wrote a lengthy manifesto. Please answer Johuniq's question above. Jayjg (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See the answer I gave above. // Liftarn (talk)
Please quote the sources the discuss Breivik's "criticism of Islam", describing it as such, or describing him as a "critic of Islam". Jayjg (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'll do your reading for you. "openly discussing being anti-Islam throughout"(Daily Mail), "invites Jewish groups in Israel, Buddhists in China, and Hindu nationalist groups in India to contain the spread of Islam"(Christian Science Monitor), "the Norwegian anti-Islamic citizen journalist website Document.no, to which Mr Breivik himself was a frequent contributor"(BBC), "detailed instructions on carrying out a war against the Islamization of Europe"(IBT), "show the concern Breivik had for the so called “Islamisation” of Europe."(CN), "His ideology appears to be a form of reactionary Christian fundamentalism, fuelled by hatred of Islam, Marxism and non-whites."(Economist), "In his manifesto, he rails against multiculturalism and Islam"(Yahoo). // Liftarn (talk)

You do understand that this is an encyclopedia? The links in the template should lead to articles relevant for a criticism of Islam in an encyclopedic sense—it is not a comprehensive list of people who have written anti-Islamic material, and individuals are not included based on the number of people they have killed. Johnuniq (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And Breivik is indeed notable for his attitude towards Islam. His manifesto is well known, and not only because the sheer volume of it. It is of course heavily based on the works of others. // Liftarn (talk)
a) We're not interested in your personal opinions, and b) we're not going to let you smear actual critics of Islam by equating them with a mass murderer. This game is over. Jayjg (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Liftarn, being notable for having an attitude isn't the same thing as being a critic. Anyone can write a so-called manifesto, but a religious critic produces a substantial body of coherent writing, which specifically draws and makes specific arguments about a religion based primarily upon the religious sources, using a number of methodologies such as socio-historic methodologies, literary criticism, or legal theory. Breivik obviously doesn't do that. Admittedly, some of the individuals currently mentioned on this tab do not meet that criteria either, and others who do have often been edited out by others who think that the only critics of Islam are non-Muslim polemicists.

This tab is very odd at best, and always a mess, for the definition of what constitutes "criticism" is extremely subjective. So, depending on the personal whims of various editors, it has transformed a great deal over time. At one point it even included specific events. I added some Muslim critics, such as Ahmad Kasravi and Ali Dashti but they were removed by other editors, for not fitting their desired narrative of what constitutes "criticism of Islam". Some of this clearly stems from the ever shifting content featured on the Criticism of Islam article. Many of these "criticism" articles (not just this one on Islam, but also Christianity and Judaism, and so on) seem to refuse to condescend that reformists are in fact also critics, for criticism motivates their call for reform. See the above discussion of critics, Attatürk and also my previously requested a move above, to merge these disparate sources into a single list and create a worthwhile template. The same shoudl be done for all of these "criticism" articles tooJemiljan (talk) 03:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is unclear of the list of included persons should be of scholars having a rational theological argument or random conspiracy theorists. As it is now it's a bit muddled so it's not easy to know. May I suggest we create an islamophobia sidebar for the extremists. // Liftarn (talk)
Yeah, I'm sure that will we'll have no WP:BLP problems with that sidebar. Why don't you create a Category:Islamophobes for them while you're at it? Please stop wasting everyone's time with this nonsense. Jayjg (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you have a point there. Well, I don't think Breivik weill have any problem being called a critis of Islam. // Liftarn (talk)
Sorry, you have no reliable sources that describe him as a "Critic of Islam" (hint: "hating" and "criticizing" Islam are not identical), and anyway, as stated before, this game is over. Please review my comment of 19:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Jayjg (talk) 09:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm perfectly aware of your personal views. However Wikipedia does not exist to cater to your personal views, but is instead based on reliable sources even if the sources is in conflict with your views of the world. // Liftarn (talk)
Yes, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Which reliable sources describe Breivik as a "Critic of Islam"? So far you've provided none. Jayjg (talk) 10:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided eight of them above. Please read them. Like Upton Sinclair said "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!". // Liftarn (talk)
Not one of those sources called Breivik a "Critic of Islam". In fact, not one described him as a "Critic" of, well, anything! Compare to, for example, the first person on this list, Irshad Manji, who is described as a vocal critic of Islam, a harsh critic of Islam, known as a critic of Islam, the scathing but believing critic of Islam, Outspoken critic of Islam, well-known critic of Islam, Critic of Islam, outspoken Canadian critic of Islam, etc. You're still playing games and wasting our time here, but until you come up with some reliable sources that describe Breivik as a "Critic of Islam", this conversation is over. Jayjg (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

" Liftarn Please note Johnuniq's point above: "...it is not a comprehensive list of people who have written anti-Islamic material." You are absolutely right about how "...it is unclear if the list of included persons should be of scholars having a rational theological argument or random conspiracy theorists." The reason it is unclear is because there are no guidelines or rules governing these templates, despite their being continually contentious. Do you see any "random conspiracy theorists" included in this template? You might like to have a quick look at the List of critics of Islam as well. This template started off as an "Islam and Controversies" and concerned events, and then later morphed into the present shape, which is now primarily a list of names. I think the list of names are better suited to the list.

Also, regarding your proposed 'Islamophobia' template, what is the exact purpose? If it's simply to compile a list, then why not simply edit the existing list? Why is a template even necessary?

That said, I would also observe that Jayjg's insinuation that your motivation of inclusion is to "smear" supposedly valid "critics" of Islam, is hardly an example of WP:AGF. Jayjg, I understand and support your WP:BLP criticisms, but is your confrontational, even hostile tone accusing Liftarn of attempting to "smear" people, and insisting that "this game is over" really necessary? We're all adults here, aren't we? I would expect better behavior from such an "experienced" editor.

On that note, it's interesting that you seem far more concerned about Liftarn's supposed "smearing" than you are with the underlying problems inherent in this tab, namely that it is ill-defined and problematic, which is why it is continually a mess and only rarely used in WP entries. Why not directly and seriously address these underlying problems, which I've pointed out above and in previous discussions? What's stopping you?

You might start by comparing this tab to the Criticism of Judaism template. Oh wait a minute, it's pretty obvious that there is no such equivalent template! That page merely features a the template for Judaism in general. The same is also true of the Criticism of Christianity entry. What is found there is a template for Criticism of religion template, which includes some religions, but Judaism is not included at the top (it's mentioned further down under "violence"). That tab does have a short section of individual "critics" featured.

Finally, I might also note that per previous discussions regarding this tab (going as far back to when it had a different name and purpose), that it either be entirely overhauled and reformatted along the lines of other templates, merged or redirected to the Criticism of religion template, or be dispensed with? Let's try and find a way to resolve all of these various problems.Jemiljan (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jemiljan. I found much of your comment irrelevant (e.g. some digression about "Criticism of Judaism"), and much else more of a comment about me than about article content, so I won't bother responding to most of it. I will just re-iterate the simple facts: Liftarn was trying to smear critics of Islam by associating them with a mass-murderer, and that game is now over. I've become quite familiar with Liftarn's edits over a period of many years, and I assume exactly as much good faith with him as is warranted by experience. Jayjg (talk) 16:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Liftarn was trying to smear critics of Islam by associating them with a mass-murderer"

"Fact"? So you say, but it sounds a hell of lot more like an accusation than a proven "fact". While I may not have the extensive experience with Liftarn that you claim to have, I would only observe that what he's argued- with which I also disagree- merely seems to reflect that he's convinced of his own argument. So do explain how that constitutes deliberate "smearing". Indeed, people quite indeliberately draw association fallacies all the time. Yet you're accusing him of something far more intentional, based on nothing more than your smugly stated say-so. Precisely why should anyone believe you or take your claims seriously? Do I detect some exaggeration on your part? Furthermore, my "irrelevant digression" is quite obviously directly relevant to this poorly managed template, but it would appear that it is Liftarn, and not the composition of this template, that is your overriding concern.Jemiljan (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2011(UTC)

Again, I have extensive experience with his editing, you do not. I am speaking from knowledge, you are opining in a vacuum of such knowledge. And phrases like "your smugly stated say-so" are exactly what you accuse me of vis-à-vis Liftarn. Instead of chiding me, perhaps you should practice what you preach, or teach by example. Jayjg (talk) 04:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...and maybe you should be more concerned about contet quality than your personal beefs? That's OK, it's pretty clear that your priority is browbeating other editors rather than present any evidence for those so-called "facts" you insist upon. Sorry, but even such an incredibly experienced editor as yourself isn't above criticism, and doesn't browbeat other editors.. You play the same game, by the same rules. If Liftarn is "smearing" people as you say, then put your money where your mouth is and prove it. After all, if it's true, it shouldn't be hard for you to do, n'est pas? Otherwise, it's just an empty statetment, not a "fact", no matter how much you insist otherwise. Jemiljan (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please review my previous post, which you appear not to have read. Jayjg (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I read it, and your behavior is still precisely as I described. Browbeating other editors based on your oh-so-mighty "experienced" say-so isn't evidence for anything, period. Can you manage to put any money where your mouth is and demonstrate that Liftarn is in fact out to "smear" people. Sorry, but your almighty say-so just doesn't cut it. I expect far better from such a self-proclaimed "experienced" editor.Jemiljan (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An source of questionable reliabilitycalls Breivik a "critic of Islam". A reliable source says Breivik "criticized Islam". Another says Breivik wrote posts "critical of Islam". Jayjg: would these sources merit Breivik's inclusion in the list?
Note: I'm not arguing for his inclusion. I'm just trying to gage the amount and quality of sources needed to include a person.Bless sins (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any reliable sourcing in those links for him being a "critic of Islam", much less a notable one. Contrast this with the ease with which I could find many reliable sources explicitly describing Manji as a "critic of Islam". Jayjg (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it's so "easy", then why don't you provide some examples? Manji is described no differently than many reformers like Mona Eltahawy, yet Manji somehow meets the criteria of a "critic" whereas Mona is merely a "reformer". Why is that? Because the criteria for this list is undefined and in no way agreed upon from the start.Jemiljan (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If Tom Gross wrote an editorial in the National Review on February 8, 2002, describing a "Muslims only" sign on the way to Mecca as "Islamic state apartheid in action", would that be reliable sourcing for it being apartheid, or even just discrimination? Jayjg (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rhetorical question. How is "apartheid" practiced in a single city with no other groups practiced? Are Mormons described in similar terms for refusing to allow non-Mormons entry into their temples?Jemiljan (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting, Jayjg , that despite your red herring about 'apartheid' above, you still haven't cogently addressed my point about the definition of a "critic" versus a "reformer", and under what terms someone does or does not merit inclusion in this list. When you have a minute, try addressing that point in a cogent and reasonable manner, and this time try and avoid your usual browbeating about your extensive "experience". If you're really so incredibly 'experienced', then do try and employ some of it to answer this perfectly reasonable question.Jemiljan (talk) 09:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources seem perfectly sufficient, I don't see what the actual problem here is? Do some people here want to show critics of Islam only in a good light, is that it? Breivik was a mass murderer, so what? He's evidently considered a critic of Islam. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 05:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comments above: What reliable secondary sources discuss the criticism of Islam made by this individual? and The links in the template should lead to articles relevant for a criticism of Islam in an encyclopedic sense—it is not a comprehensive list of people who have written anti-Islamic material Johnuniq (talk) 05:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Points taken. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having third-party reliable sources call an individual a 'critic of Islam' is important. So can we see a reliable source for every living person on this list. Because if there is no source, then it can be considered "unsourced content". And unsourced content that is controversial (and this is a controversial topic) about living persons must be removed ASAP.Bless sins (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point, Bless sins. It goes back to my previous point about the rather torrid history of this templatein the first place, and how it is more a podium for fans of criticizing Islam as opposed to good, solid, verifiable content.Jemiljan (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Merge with "Criticism of Religion"[edit]

For the reasons cited above, I am proposing to merge this sidebar into the Template:Criticism_of_religion. Islam is the only religion that has it's own template. The history of this template is riddled with controversy. A move would make it more NPOV and also head off some of the WP:BLP issues raised. That said, the Template:Criticism_of_religion template is not entirely devoid of the same problems (for example, a lack of reformers among the critics), but it would be a good start.Jemiljan (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All editors please post on the Tfd discussion, not here. Debresser (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But don't let that stop you from referring to and linking to the discussions here. I think that most comments so far have been based on assumptions, not a close reading.Jemiljan (talk) 02:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Order[edit]

Are these "critics" listed in any particular order? Varlaam (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, and there is no discernibly defined criteria for their inclusion in the list either.Jemiljan (talk) 09:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Criticism_of_Islam_sidebar&oldid=1136402838"