< July 24 July 26 >

July 25

Category:People from Blossom, Texas

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: merge. The Bushranger One ping only 00:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Town of less than 1,500 inhabitants and just two entries. WP:SMALLCAT applies. Little potential for growth ...William 23:36, 25 July 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:A Nightmare on Elm Street

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: No consensus to rename - jc37 03:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Hi, I believe that Category:A Nightmare on Elm Street should be renamed as Category:A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise), matching the category's article. But I could be wrong.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 22:51, 25 July 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.

Islamophobia categories

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/merge country and region categories to "Opposition to Islam" equivalents, delete the empty Israel category and the Zionism category, renominate the Scholars category, upmerge Works category to Category:Anti-Islam works. This is a divisive discussion, but the camps are pretty clear. The main question here is, Should there be categories about hatred against Muslims in addition to those about opposition to Islam? The answer seems to be that on seven occasions editors created these categories, and on seven occasions they were deleted. These categories were recreated again only a month ago, and so they would have to pass a strong test to survive the repeated deletions. As evidenced by the comments below, they have not passed that test. The majority of editors here also seem unconvinced that these categories are sufficiently different than Category:Opposition to Islam and its related categories; at the very least, it is supremely hard to tell which articles would go into which category if both were maintained. A number of the "keep" voters believe the "Opposition" categories don't contain enough inherently condemnable character; opposition is something reasonable people can disagree on, while a phobia suggests inherently irrational beliefs. That's a reasonable argument, but the majority of commenters here don't buy it. The only value that seems to stick here is the ability to put Category:Islamophobia into Category:Hatred (which it is not currently in), but Category:Anti-Islam can and likely should go there. Now, let me also address the antisemitism question. Those categories are not inherent to this discussion. They can be nominated again, and (if past precedent holds) they will be supported again. But their mere existence does not in any way demand the creation of other parallel categories. Supporting one and not the other does not make anyone a bigot, and the willy-nilly claims thrown around in this discussion do not help the case of those supporting the Islamophobia categories. Especially, the Zionism category doesn't hold up; it seems to exist only to showcase the destructive activities of Anders Behring Breivik in a POV light. (I can't tell whether the empty Israel category was emptied out of turn, but if it was, it should be repopulated and renamed to Category:Opposition to Islam in Israel.) Finally, I'm not exactly sure what to do with the Scholars category, so I've renominated that. Undoubtedly, this decision will not please everyone; I encourage people who are upset with it to take the issue to WP:DRV rather than challenging me on my talk page.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant discussion at→ Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 August 10#Template:Islamophobia
Propose deleting
Propose deleting (added to nomination at 20:00 on 26 July by user:Fayenatic london):

:Propose deleting if Islamophobia categories are deleted (added to nomination by JonFlaune at 22:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC))will be nominated in a separate discussion later in that case

Nominator's rationale: Seeing as we already have Category:Opposition to Islam in Europe, I cannot see the creation of Category:Islamophobia in Europe as anything other than a POV fork and with endless revert wars in sight over which of these two categories to add articles to. The problem isn't created with these categories though as we already have the two hierarchies flowing from Category:Anti-Islam and Category:Islamophobia that aren't even connected to each other. This obviously is an untenable situation that needs to be addressed squarely in its own right, but creating the four categories included in this nomination is not going to contribute to resolving that problem. __meco (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Islamophobia and opposition to Islam relates to each other like antisemitism and opposition to Judaism. Unless you are looking to whitewash bigotry I think you need to read up on the subject. // Liftarn (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Islamophobia has also only just been (re-)created. I have added it to the nomination. – Fayenatic London 20:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we check the parallel categories we have both Category:Anti-Judaism and Category:Antisemitism so it makes sense to have both Category:Anti-Islam and Category:Islamophobia as they are not the same thing. // Liftarn (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. "Opposition to (the religion of ) Islam" is NOT the same as Islamophobia (prejudice and hatred against Muslims, per article definition). These categories are based directly on the corresponding hierarchy for Category:Antisemitism, which are recognized by the United Nations, various other international organisations and in scholarly literature as equivalent phenomena. We have Category:Antisemitism by country or region (not "Opposition to Judaism by country or region"). Hence, the categories are needed to standardise category titles as well, otherwise we will have to rename all those antisemitism categories to titles corresponding to the ones used for prejudice and hatred against Muslims. (Labelling antisemitism as antisemitism, but insisting on labelling prejudice and hatred against Muslims only as "opposition to islam", is obviously unacceptable double standard as well as misleading and a fringe/extreme POV (the POV held by the Islamophobes themselves)). JonFlaune (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that one of Norway's leading dailies, Klassekampen, recently had a front page story[1] that said that in Wikimedia Norway's opinion, people sharing Anders Behring Breivik's extremist views are attempting to portray Islamophobia as "legitimate criticism of Islam" in the English Wikipedia. Using one standard for antisemitism and a completely different standard for islamophobia that basically accepts the extreme views of islamophobic bloggers, is obviously extremely problematic. JonFlaune (talk) 22:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 08:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 08:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 08:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 08:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete Category:Zionism and Islamophobia- is clear POV push are there no Category:Palestenian nationalism and Antisemitism so such category should not exist either--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The category is just as justified as Category:Islam and antisemitism (and as noted, all the categories are based directly on the hierarchy for Category:Antisemitism including this one), so either we'll keep both or delete both (if this one is deleted, I'll nominate Category:Islam and antisemitism for deletion based on precedent). There are plenty of RS discussing zionism in relation to islamophobia (for example in the case of Anders Behring Breivik Jerusalem Post, Al Jazeera English, Mondoweiss 1, Mondoweiss 2, Der Spiegel, but also other cases, the phenomenon of European islamophobic groups and far-right groups in Israel finding common ground, combining Islamophobic and Zionist views, has been widely reported on in recent years (Reuters), and groups like Kach and Kahane Chai are obviously prime examples of groups combining far-right Zionism and Islamophobia). (there is a Category:Antisemitism in Palestine‎ and even Category:Hamas, both of which are subcategories of Category:Islam and antisemitism, so since there indeed is such a category for Palestinian nationalism, according to your own argument, also this one must be kept. Otherwise it will be another example of islamophobic double standard in the category system by refusing to categorize islamophobia (as the Islamophobes prefer) while having identical categories for antisemitism, including categories linking Islam and Palestine to antisemitism.) JonFlaune (talk) 11:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
JonFlaune (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very good. I must say I'm dismayed to see JonFlaune continuing to create these categories even after the nomination of the first batch. I also reject his demand that the Antisemitism categories would now be part of this nomination. They are not. I will readily discuss those as well, and I don't mind if that discussion takes place next to the present one, as I clearly see the parallels, however, they are not part of this discussion. __meco (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, you cannot expect Wikipedia editors to stop all productive work on a coherent category system for ages merely because you want the categories to be deleted (and frankly, I consider this nomination to be frivolous, as all these categories are based on already existing categories for racism/prejudice (antisemitism) with the identical form). Yes, this discussion is necessarily a discussion of all categories with the identical form whether it is islamophobia or antisemitism (if it will not follow automatically, it will set a clear precedent for the next debates on other identical categories). Deleting the islamophobia categories and whitewashing racist islamophobia as "criticism of Islam" while having identical categories for antisemitism conveys an extreme message, and is the exact problem recently pointed out in media coverage on Wikipedia, where Wikimedia Norway asserts that people sharing Anders Behring Breivik's views are attempting to whitewash Islamophobia at the English Wikipedia[3]. Also, labelling racist islamophobia as criticism of Islam only is a fringe point of view, unsupported by most scholarly sources. The question here is: Should the categories be based on accepted and scholarly terms, or be based on the fringe point of view? JonFlaune (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you kidding me? You think this nomination is frivolous? you must not know the meaning of the term. A frivolous nomination is when someone nominates something for deletion just to make a point or when a robust consensus against it clearly exists. Already by the comments provided by other users in this discussion you should realize that whatever this nomination should be branded, frivolous is not one of those terms. The only thing here that would resemble frivolity is your abuse of the term frivolous. That is irrational and unconstructive. __meco (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I reiterate: All these categories are based on already existing categories for racism/prejudice (antisemitism) with the identical form. I know the scholarly meaning of the term very well. As the first sentence of the article on Islamophobia points out, Islamophobia is "prejudice or racism against, hatred or irrational fear of Muslims." That is something entirely different from criticism of religion, as the far-right extremist fringe wants to portray their racism as. JonFlaune (talk) 22:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is perfectly normal that nominator adds entries to the nomination in the course of the discussion and for various reasons. This is usually done with entities that clearly adhere to the original rationale given for the nomination, often because they were initially overlooked by the nominator. And this is usually quite uncontroversial. In the present nomination Fayenatic london announced that he/she was adding categories to the nomination. That was in my view a somewhat unfortunate approach as the correct one would be to suggest to me, the nominator, to add these categories. In any case, that inappropriate wording notwithstanding, I confirmed that these categories were added to the nomination, which would bring that issue in line with established practice. Now, as for JonFlaune's attempt to add a number of anti-semitism categories to the nomination, in explicit defiance of my decision not to have these included, that was clearly inappropriate. I have now made the requisite changes to the nomination lede which should set the issue straight. __meco (talk) 07:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wholeheartedly agree that new proposals during the review of a nomination should not be "retaliatory" per WP:POINT. However, I believe that this wasn't the essence of JonFlaune's remarks - assuming the best of faith, it appears that he was pointing out that this nomination, based, as it seems, on a practical rationale, fails to discuss all relevant aspects of the matter. In particular, it doesn't discuss how the taxonomies of closely related phenomena is built, and doesn't refer to the taxonomies used in literature. Pointing this out is helpful to those evaluating the proposal's merit, and it is understandable if, in his first posts to this noticeboard, an editor isn't familiar with how proposals should be discussed. Being new to this noticeboard myself, I might be wrong, but it seems that the proper way of handling the proposal, given JonFlaune's arguments, is to vote against it based on its failure to address these issues and invite the proposer to reformulate it or withdraw it and post an amended version at a later time. Regards, benjamil talk/edits 07:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To quote from the 2007 Nov 7 nomination: this category will only be a magnet for disputes and edit warring. "Islamophobia" is a controversial term, the meaning and appropriateness of which is the subject of dispute both in real life (see the article) and among Wikipedians. – Fayenatic London 12:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, Islamophobia is NOT a controversial term. It is the term widely accepted not only in scholarly usage, but also in official usage, as the Islamophobia main article makes it clear. The term may be controversial on the extremist far-right fringe, but that shouldn't matter to us. I find it shocking that categories for islamophobia constantly appear to be sabotaged, while Wikipedia has a huge hierarchy of identical categories for antisemitism. It is obvious to everyone that such categories need to be considered together systematically and consistently, instead of singling out islamophobia, resulting in whitewash of islamophobia as "criticism of islam" or something and a striking double standard that sends a very islamophobic message. I fail to see how islamophobia categories would be "magnets" of anything any more than the antisemitism categories; as long as material is properly sourced as always, there is no problem with categorizing a scholar of Islamophobia or an organisation combating Islamophobia with the appropriate categories. JonFlaune (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although I dug up the precedent discussions from 2006-7, I acknowledge that usage and acceptance of the term may have moved on substantially since then. I'll leave it to others to opine on that. As for your attempt to draw a parallel with antisemitism, that can be compared to Islamophobia, but they are not identical; both may mingle racism with fear of religion, but each is a different case, especially as Islamphobia is not directed against a single race. As for "properly sourced", it is easier and probably better to use lists rather than categories for debatable/controversial characteristics. – Fayenatic London 14:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It appears to me that the only rationale for deleting these categories boils than to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, an invalid rationale. There is extensive discussion on Talk:Islamophobia on the term's merits, demonstrating it to be a widely accepted term on par with Antisemitism. For example, Islamophobia, Antisemitism and Xenophobia were recognized as equivalent phenomena by the Stockholm International Forum on Combating Intolerance in 2001. JonFlaune (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It apperas to me that the only rationale for keeping these categories boild than to WP:ILIKEIT, an invalid rationale.
Creating own categories of given ones is a sign for POV, neither literature nor rational use (2 items per cat) is applicable. --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
During a past untimely move proposal for the Islamophobia article I found some statistics on the term's use in academic publishing. "Islamophobia" was at that time twice as frequent as "anti-islam" in academic discourse, e.g. the preferred term by a good margin.[4]
Best regards, benjamil talk/edits 16:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is well worth pointing out. However, recent changes to the article titled pro-life and pro-choice resulted in less frequently-used more neutral terms (Opposition to legalized abortion and Support for the legalization of abortion) instead of the more common terms. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no problem with someone opening a discussion on the titles of categories for racism and prejudice, to be applied to all the relevant categories. The problem is having an extensive hierarchy of antisemitism categories (even Islam and antisemitism and Antisemitism in Palestine, which are hardly uncontroversial) while describing islamophobia only as "opposition to islam", a clear double standard. JonFlaune (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look at it from the positive perspective. If the current nomination goes through, and with the added leverage of the outcome of the abortion naming discussion, that combined would constitute a wonderful argument and leverage towards renaming also the antisemitism categories to something less rhetorical. __meco (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
agree with roscelese here. this misrepresentation of sources is also quite evident on the islamophobia-page as well. in addition, the page has *huge* and *undue* criticism section that violates a neutral point of view and wp:notnewspaper. the "misuse"-subsection is completely misconceived. clearly, the term has been misused but so have terms like "racism" as well. however, there is no "misuse"-section at the racism page or other similar pages. the term might be very controversial in some political milieus but in the academia it's not. of course, one won't find any unanimity but the consensus is clear.-- altetendekrabbe  17:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I must respectfully disagree. There are considerable questions on the exact meaning and usage of the term even by those who want to salvage the word and apply it forcefully. As the word is controversial and in a state of flux we should use less loaded terms for the category but obviously quote and use the term within articles. Let's be conservative and wait until the usage settles down. There are obvious straight forward phrases (anti-Islam, anti-Muslim bigotry, anti-Muslim prejudice, persecution of Muslims) which say exactly what they mean. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The conclusion of this discussion is that we have consensus to keep the categories. The minority that wants to delete them has not cited any valid reasons; it is a mere case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Per WP:SNOW this discussion can now be closed, as there is no chance of a consensus to delete the categories ever emerging. JonFlaune (talk) 06:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jon, that is so nice of you summing up the discussion and concluding on the the way the close should be made. That way the closing admin won't have to waste any time reading through all the tedious comments and petty squabbles in order to make up their mind but can simply take your undeniably objective and wise position on face value. __meco (talk) 07:26, 9 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:Popular psychology journals

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. No prejudice against recreation as a parent cat for the magazine cat if journals are found. The Bushranger One ping only 00:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The only article in this category is about a magazine, not a peer-reviewed academic journal. Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yes, but others can be added, although this one (and others I've left uncategorised) could be candidates for deletion as vanity journals. Tim bates (talk) 23:14, 25 July 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:Behavior genetic psychology journals

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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: None of the three journals in this category are exclusively "psychology" journals. In addition, "behavior genetics" is not a subfield of "psychology" alone. Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


sounds fine: Several supercategories might like to contain this category - addiction and psychiatry, as well as genetics and biology.

It would be best if the psychology journals category kept this category as a subordinate, as many of the articles are about behavior

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:Positive Psychology Journals

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 (C2A). The Bushranger One ping only 01:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All other categories in this tree use this type of capitalization. Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:03, 25 July 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:Deist thinkers

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 to Category:Deist philosophers and prune if needed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't really see this as being a useful distinction and the actual members of this category presently aren't all known for being evangelists for deism. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:33, 25 July 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:Stub template deletion candidates

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 - jc37 03:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SFD is dead; this category is no longer required. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:11, 25 July 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:User gcf-0

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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete/speedy delete. 0-level category, which have extensive precedent for deletion. VegaDark (talk) 04:48, 25 July 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:Sport in Central America etc

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 "Sport", upmerge "Baseball" and "Football". The Bushranger One ping only 06:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Upmerging

Nominator's rationale: unnnecessary intermediate categories; none of the categories in Category:Sport in the Caribbean or the continent categories eg Category:Sport in Asia have an intermediate “by country” category. This is different from the “sport by country” category for which an intermediate category is needed eg Category:Sport in Central America by sport. Hugo999 (talk) 02:00, 25 July 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