Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 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
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 L ondon 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
  • Delete all Islamophobia categories because the word is in a state of flux. When it has a settled and well-defined meaning categories can be safely created. In the mean time the catch-all category Category:anti-Islam can do. Jason from nyc ( talk) 22:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
    • We do not delete categories based on people's personal opinions which are unsupported by any sources. Note that Jason from nyc's opinion has not yet made it to the main article on Islamophobia. Islamophobia is the well established/recognized scholarly term for prejudice and hatred against muslims, also used in official usage, and has a well defined meaning, as we all know. JonFlaune ( talk) 22:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
      • One only has to look at the log of the Islamophobia page to see the definition just changed to make Islamophobia a kind of racism. Indeed, the criticism section is extensive showing well-sourced references that find the concept ill-defined in one manner or another. Nothing I said was my POV. Read the article and look at the continual state of flux among the experts in the field. Jason from nyc ( talk) 22:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
        • Islamophobia has been the dominant scholarly and official term for at least a decade, and is regularly used by European Union agencies, the Council of Europe, the United Nations, and so forth. It is only rejected by the far-right fringe and occasionally some other voices (but even the term category:antisemitism obviously has notable critics too, for example as the Palestinians are just as Semitic as the Jews) JonFlaune ( talk) 22:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per JonFlaune. benjamil talk/ edits 00:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all Islamophobia categories because the term is inherently biased which violates Wikipedia NPOV principle. Anti-Islamism is a valid alternative. -- Zero g ( talk) 02:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • NOTE: Any CfD is not a "tit for tat" and nominations cannot be added afterwards that violates WP:POINT. If users feel that other categories need to be nominated they should feel free to make new CfDs, but to "attach" long-standing and well-established and WP:NPOV categories "for deletion" as a vengeful and retaliatory afterthought violates all the rules of WP:CIVIL and the due process how nominations for deletion are set up. I have therefore struck the latterly-added categories because they muddy the waters and create confusion, and it is clear they are just violations of WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. Thank you, IZAK ( talk) 06:29, 27 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
  • Keep all because its an encyclopedic WP:V and WP:RS topic that can be conveyed in a WP:NPOV manner, although Category:Zionism and Islamophobia (as presently constituted) is hard to fathom beyond trying to "get at the Zionists" and needs help, but if it continues there could be more like Category:Liberalism and Islamophobia, Category:Socialism and Islamophobia, Category:Capitalism and Islamophobia. Bottom line, as the Islamophobia article makes it very clear with abundant WP:RS, Muslims face discrimination worldwide, and is a fact of life and cannot be wished away. IZAK ( talk) 06:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: duplicative, and a POV magnet to cast groups and organizations in a non neutral light. – Lionel ( talk) 07:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep and ask for speedy close as a bad faith nomination. We have both an article and a template for islamophobia that is a real and well covered subject. To not having a category for it due to the potential for misuse would be a major disservice to everyone and is easily solved by only using it for articles where islamophobia is supported by reliable sources. // Liftarn ( talk) 10:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • For the record as it is hard to trace previous discussions, here is a trail of previous CFDs for Category:Islamophobia:
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 L ondon 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 L ondon 14:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all. Should we now create strange combinations like Islamophobia + xxx? Besides, a container for single or few articles reveals strong POV. Other categories like Anti-Islam should do it, not a vast amount of combo-POV-cats. *miau* -- Yikrazuul ( talk) 15:07, 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
  • Keep Categories exist to help readers find articles about similar topics. However editors should be careful to include only articles that are clearly relevant. TFD ( talk) 14:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Merge back to 'Category: Opposition to Islam'. Opposition to Islam is not necessarily the same as Islamophobia. It is possible to criticise Islam for what it actually does to other people and religions worldwide truthfully. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 00:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply
    • "what it actually does to other people and religions worldwide" appears to be an Islamophobic and politically extreme statement, and not a valid rationale for deleting any category. JonFlaune ( talk) 01:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply
      • I'm changing my vote now to Delete since JonFlaune has confirmed what JPL asserted. POV pushing has no place here on the wikipedia. Labelling statements of fact as 'Islamophobia', indicates that the term has no legitimate foundation and is simply a form of namecalling. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 02:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply
    • You (Benkenobi18) vote for a merge, but you argue that islamophobia is opposition to Islam are different. If they are different then they should be in different categories. Or would you support the merging of Category:Antisemitism into Category:Anti-Judaism? // Liftarn ( talk) 08:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Islamophobia categories. The term is a recent creation of certain groups meant to push the position that opposition to Islam is inherently irrational and maybe even a sign of mental disturbance. It is clearly not a neutral term. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply
    • This position ignores the well sourced position taken by the main article on Islamophobia and cannot be taken into account, as a fringe point of view completely unsupported by sources. Btw, Islamophobia is not a "recent creation" and it's the term used by virtually all scholars, the UN, the EU, the Council of Europe (as documented in the main article and talk page), apparently known as "certain groups" among the far right fringe. JonFlaune ( talk) 00:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Merge to 'Category: Anti-Islam'. While anti-Semitism and its anti-Islam counterpart are factual terms, Islamophobia connotes a degree of irrationality and nuances fear, and is considerably more POV than other available terms. Ankh. Morpork 10:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. These are non-neutral terms, promoted by the media for sales purposes. The terms appear to be mere name-calling or labeling. We have no such sales goals and can use neutral terms, that are npov, respected by all, and non-controversial. If "phobic" events occur, we can still document them. They would appear to be anti-Islam or anti-Muslim. Or we can describe the events as they occur and allow the reader to "label" them. pre-"labeling" is an pov attempt to "lead" the reader. We should not be "leading" the reader but allowing the reader to judge for themselves. Student7 ( talk) 15:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Another completely unsourced personal opinion that notably ignores the well sourced main article in question. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not personal opinions. As is well known to everyone, Islamophobia is the scholarly and official term for racism and prejudice against Muslims. JonFlaune ( talk) 13:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per JonFlaune. - NorsemanII ( talk) 17:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The 'keep'-voters obviously are not aware of the fact that academics are still debating the legitimacy of the term (Jocelyne Cesari, Why the term Islamophobia is more a predicament than an explanation. -- Ankimai ( talk) 20:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: There is no need for a total consensus that something exists for it to be used in a category as proven by Category:Roswell UFO incident, Category:Creationism and so on. // Liftarn ( talk) 14:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC) reply
      • I second that, and could also add various of the antisemitism categories, such as "Antisemitism in Palestine". Many (in Palestine or the Arab world maybe even the majority) would argue the Palestinians are Semitic too, for example, and dispute the use of that term in a context relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. JonFlaune ( talk) 16:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (and merge content of "Opposition to Islam" to "Islamophobia" categories, rather than vice versa). It is unencyclopedic and unreflective of NPOV to have a different standard for hatred of Muslims than for hatred of any other group, and by treating anti-Muslim hate groups as "opponents" or "critics" of Islam, we convey on them an impression of legitimacy unsupported by the sources. !Votes here that recommend deleting the categories because it is right to oppose Islam, such as Johnpacklambert's and Benkenobi18's, or that conflate hatred of Muslims with opposition to Islamism, should obviously be discarded as POV-motivated and worthless to the discussion. (Re: Category:Anti-Judaism - it's a category I've always found weird, and I would certainly not have a problem merging its contents to Antisemitism, Persecution of Jews, etc.) – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 18:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: To summarize the debate, we have a number of keep votes, presenting rational arguments. Of the delete votes, most votes do not present any other arguments than WP:IDONTLIKEIT (and refuse to take into account the existence of identical categories for antisemitism) and very few if any present valid reasons based on policy and sources. It appears to me that we have a consensus to keep the Islamophobia categories, consistent with earlier decisions to keep the Antisemitism categories, and consistent with evidence presented in the main article on Islamophobia, its talk page and elsewhere. JonFlaune ( talk) 16:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment stating that a term is inherently a violation of the rules of NPOV and involves an attempt to marginzalize certain opinions is not a case of sayng "I don't like it", it is a case of stating the name violates wikipedia policy. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment We have a controversial word that is highly politicized and widely criticized as a vague polemical term unsuited for analytical exposition. It’s application is a constant source of conflict, revert wars, and “my sources are better than your sources” conflicts. Thus the “deletes” see a “bias”, POV, “non-neutral”, loaded-term while they see better neutral terms to use. The “keeps” note that it is used by some and the “deletes” note it is abused by others. Experts (outside of political institutions) find the term questionable and misleading. A consensus for a more generic neutral term can be reached as it has for other topics. Jason from nyc ( talk) 18:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC) reply
    • The word is only controversial among the far-right extremist fringe. It is the accepted and established term used by virtually all scholars and official institutions, such as European Union and United Nations agencies. Again you present your own opinion only, ignoring sources. As long as we have antisemitism categories, we cannot treat hatred of muslims differently with a "more generic neutral term" whitewashing Islamophobia, that's racist double standard. JonFlaune ( talk) 00:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC) reply
      • This is obviously not true as the article on Islamophobia clearly shows. Critics include scholars who focus on anti-Muslim bigotry (Jackson, Imhoff) and we can now include Cesari provided by Ankimai above. You're presenting your point of view and it has no relations to the facts of the article. As for the EU & UN ... that only proves that the word is indeed "controversial word that is 'highly' politicized" as I said above. The EU doesn't define the English language and this is an English language Wikipedia. Jason from nyc ( talk) 03:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC) reply
        • Wikipedia is written from the mainstream point of view, not the extreme fringe point of view. Islamophobia is the official and established term for hatred against muslims [5]. JonFlaune ( talk) 23:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC) reply
          • No, it is not. Please stop trolling. A lack of clear meaning, interpretation and ownership first became apparent with the researches of the European Monitoring Centre for Racism and Xenophobia’s (EUMC) Summary report into Islamophobia in the EU following 11 September 2001. Despite having asked each of the then fifteen national focus points employed by the EUMC to define ‘Islamophobia’, for many it was something that was seriously problematic, meaning that the end result was inconclusive. (Chris Allen, Islamophobia and its Consequences, 2007). -- Ankimai ( talk) 19:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC) reply
            • But you're pulling this quote from a comprehensive book on Islamophobia by a world-recognized scholar of Islamophobia. How can you possibly be using this to argue against the use of the term? If you actually read the source, it explains very clearly that the question isn't whether Islamophobia exists or whether the term is in mainstream use, but rather how different governments define it for primarily legal purposes. Compare pornography: the fact that different definitions might exist does not mean that the phenomenon does not exist or that the term is not used. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 17:00, 7 August 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
  • keep as per roscelese.--  altetendekrabbe  19:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Merge to 'Category: Anti-Islam'. "Islamophobia" is a POV name, Wikipedia can and should do better than that. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 22:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A POV fork category already twice concluded as such, here and here. As "Opposition to Islam in Europe" and "Anti-Islam" categories exist, this is just another viewpoint at that. Some people are comparing this with "Antisemitism in Europe" category. If you look at those categories, they have articles like "Holocaust in Norway", not living persons or organisations. -- Pudeo ' 01:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Funny how JonFlaune claims that the Islamophobia category is somehow the current consensus. In fact, checking the logs for the page you can see it was deleted seven times based on consensus. Essentially, the same persons kept recreating the category – bashing your head into the wall is not creating a consensus. JonFlaune re-created that main category only 14 days after it was deleted and protected for the last time. And now we're discussing about the subcategories based on that recreation. -- Pudeo ' 01:46, 8 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
  • Delete all - as above, the term is a partisan neologism. Neutral terms exist for opposition to Islam; this isn't one. ProhibitOnions (T) 18:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC) reply
    • More completely unsupported assertions (i.e. the WP:FRINGE view that Islamophobia (=hatred and prejudice against Muslims) is "opposition to Islam") and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Should we describe Antisemitism as opposition to Judaism too? JonFlaune ( talk) 01:42, 10 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

  • Are there any "popular psychology" publications that can be classified as "peer-reviewed academic journals"? If yes, can you give an example? -- Guillaume2303 ( talk) 13:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom. – Fayenatic L ondon 13:02, 27 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

  • Comment: yes, a cat "Behavior genetics journals" could be categorized into "Psychology journals" and "Neuroscience journals". I would have much preferred to do without this cat, though. Behavior genetics is a very interdisciplinary field and it would have been better to categorize individual journals in the main cats: Genes, Brain and Behavior is really the only one ranking as a Neuroscience journal, for example. Neurogenetics is a journal that comes close to the journals in this cat, but is not really a Psychology journal. The Journal of Neurogenetics is also a neurobehavioral genetics journal, but, again, not really a Psychology journal. Anyway, now that the cat exists, renaming it is probably the best option. -- Guillaume2303 ( talk) 13:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to Category:Behavioural genetics journals, adding -al per lead article Behavioural genetics. – Fayenatic L ondon 13:12, 27 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: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
  • Comment If they can't be merged, then they're too vague and need to be listified. - jc37 02:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename: to Category:Deist philosophers or perhaps Category:Deist writers, and prune the contents to fit. I've added the cat into Category:Religious philosophers and made that a sub-cat of Category:Religious writers (Philosophers categories are generally sub-cats of the corresponding Writers). – Fayenatic L ondon 14:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename I agree with Fayenatic. Deists list those whose personal beliefs are deist but may not write about or philosophize on the matter. Just like you need a restricted category for Catholic philosophers that is distinct from the category of all Catholics, one hopes to find a category specifically on those who write about or philosophize on deism. I understand both categories (i.e. Deists and Deist thinkers) are small. Still I lean towards: Rename and subsume under religious philosophers. Jason from nyc ( talk) 14:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Delete. If the persons so listed do not actually claim or write to be Deists then they must be removed from the Category. I'm seeing things like Gauss on them, (who was in fact Christened. He is 'believed to be a Deist' from secondary sources, but never actually claims to be one. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 00:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply
      • Good point but I'm not clear if you want to delete both categories. I'm wary of listing adherents as opposed to writers and philosophers who actually expound on or advocate deism. See WP:Categorization of people for guidelines. Thus, I'd rename the thinkers category to philosophers (and delete those who do not have substantial writings on deism) while perhaps deleting the deist category. Jason from nyc ( talk) 13:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to Category:Deist writers this is already in the established writers category. We have various writers categories, we do not do thinkers categories. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename Category:Deist thinkers to Category:Deist philosophers. Several of these were preachers. Are we certain that they (and all future members) are all writers? - jc37 03:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to Category:Deist philosophers. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:08, 11 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: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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_25&oldid=1142606008"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 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
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 L ondon 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
  • Delete all Islamophobia categories because the word is in a state of flux. When it has a settled and well-defined meaning categories can be safely created. In the mean time the catch-all category Category:anti-Islam can do. Jason from nyc ( talk) 22:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
    • We do not delete categories based on people's personal opinions which are unsupported by any sources. Note that Jason from nyc's opinion has not yet made it to the main article on Islamophobia. Islamophobia is the well established/recognized scholarly term for prejudice and hatred against muslims, also used in official usage, and has a well defined meaning, as we all know. JonFlaune ( talk) 22:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
      • One only has to look at the log of the Islamophobia page to see the definition just changed to make Islamophobia a kind of racism. Indeed, the criticism section is extensive showing well-sourced references that find the concept ill-defined in one manner or another. Nothing I said was my POV. Read the article and look at the continual state of flux among the experts in the field. Jason from nyc ( talk) 22:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
        • Islamophobia has been the dominant scholarly and official term for at least a decade, and is regularly used by European Union agencies, the Council of Europe, the United Nations, and so forth. It is only rejected by the far-right fringe and occasionally some other voices (but even the term category:antisemitism obviously has notable critics too, for example as the Palestinians are just as Semitic as the Jews) JonFlaune ( talk) 22:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per JonFlaune. benjamil talk/ edits 00:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all Islamophobia categories because the term is inherently biased which violates Wikipedia NPOV principle. Anti-Islamism is a valid alternative. -- Zero g ( talk) 02:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • NOTE: Any CfD is not a "tit for tat" and nominations cannot be added afterwards that violates WP:POINT. If users feel that other categories need to be nominated they should feel free to make new CfDs, but to "attach" long-standing and well-established and WP:NPOV categories "for deletion" as a vengeful and retaliatory afterthought violates all the rules of WP:CIVIL and the due process how nominations for deletion are set up. I have therefore struck the latterly-added categories because they muddy the waters and create confusion, and it is clear they are just violations of WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. Thank you, IZAK ( talk) 06:29, 27 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
  • Keep all because its an encyclopedic WP:V and WP:RS topic that can be conveyed in a WP:NPOV manner, although Category:Zionism and Islamophobia (as presently constituted) is hard to fathom beyond trying to "get at the Zionists" and needs help, but if it continues there could be more like Category:Liberalism and Islamophobia, Category:Socialism and Islamophobia, Category:Capitalism and Islamophobia. Bottom line, as the Islamophobia article makes it very clear with abundant WP:RS, Muslims face discrimination worldwide, and is a fact of life and cannot be wished away. IZAK ( talk) 06:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: duplicative, and a POV magnet to cast groups and organizations in a non neutral light. – Lionel ( talk) 07:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep and ask for speedy close as a bad faith nomination. We have both an article and a template for islamophobia that is a real and well covered subject. To not having a category for it due to the potential for misuse would be a major disservice to everyone and is easily solved by only using it for articles where islamophobia is supported by reliable sources. // Liftarn ( talk) 10:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • For the record as it is hard to trace previous discussions, here is a trail of previous CFDs for Category:Islamophobia:
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 L ondon 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 L ondon 14:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all. Should we now create strange combinations like Islamophobia + xxx? Besides, a container for single or few articles reveals strong POV. Other categories like Anti-Islam should do it, not a vast amount of combo-POV-cats. *miau* -- Yikrazuul ( talk) 15:07, 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
  • Keep Categories exist to help readers find articles about similar topics. However editors should be careful to include only articles that are clearly relevant. TFD ( talk) 14:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Merge back to 'Category: Opposition to Islam'. Opposition to Islam is not necessarily the same as Islamophobia. It is possible to criticise Islam for what it actually does to other people and religions worldwide truthfully. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 00:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply
    • "what it actually does to other people and religions worldwide" appears to be an Islamophobic and politically extreme statement, and not a valid rationale for deleting any category. JonFlaune ( talk) 01:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply
      • I'm changing my vote now to Delete since JonFlaune has confirmed what JPL asserted. POV pushing has no place here on the wikipedia. Labelling statements of fact as 'Islamophobia', indicates that the term has no legitimate foundation and is simply a form of namecalling. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 02:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply
    • You (Benkenobi18) vote for a merge, but you argue that islamophobia is opposition to Islam are different. If they are different then they should be in different categories. Or would you support the merging of Category:Antisemitism into Category:Anti-Judaism? // Liftarn ( talk) 08:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Islamophobia categories. The term is a recent creation of certain groups meant to push the position that opposition to Islam is inherently irrational and maybe even a sign of mental disturbance. It is clearly not a neutral term. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply
    • This position ignores the well sourced position taken by the main article on Islamophobia and cannot be taken into account, as a fringe point of view completely unsupported by sources. Btw, Islamophobia is not a "recent creation" and it's the term used by virtually all scholars, the UN, the EU, the Council of Europe (as documented in the main article and talk page), apparently known as "certain groups" among the far right fringe. JonFlaune ( talk) 00:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Merge to 'Category: Anti-Islam'. While anti-Semitism and its anti-Islam counterpart are factual terms, Islamophobia connotes a degree of irrationality and nuances fear, and is considerably more POV than other available terms. Ankh. Morpork 10:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. These are non-neutral terms, promoted by the media for sales purposes. The terms appear to be mere name-calling or labeling. We have no such sales goals and can use neutral terms, that are npov, respected by all, and non-controversial. If "phobic" events occur, we can still document them. They would appear to be anti-Islam or anti-Muslim. Or we can describe the events as they occur and allow the reader to "label" them. pre-"labeling" is an pov attempt to "lead" the reader. We should not be "leading" the reader but allowing the reader to judge for themselves. Student7 ( talk) 15:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Another completely unsourced personal opinion that notably ignores the well sourced main article in question. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not personal opinions. As is well known to everyone, Islamophobia is the scholarly and official term for racism and prejudice against Muslims. JonFlaune ( talk) 13:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per JonFlaune. - NorsemanII ( talk) 17:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The 'keep'-voters obviously are not aware of the fact that academics are still debating the legitimacy of the term (Jocelyne Cesari, Why the term Islamophobia is more a predicament than an explanation. -- Ankimai ( talk) 20:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: There is no need for a total consensus that something exists for it to be used in a category as proven by Category:Roswell UFO incident, Category:Creationism and so on. // Liftarn ( talk) 14:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC) reply
      • I second that, and could also add various of the antisemitism categories, such as "Antisemitism in Palestine". Many (in Palestine or the Arab world maybe even the majority) would argue the Palestinians are Semitic too, for example, and dispute the use of that term in a context relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. JonFlaune ( talk) 16:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (and merge content of "Opposition to Islam" to "Islamophobia" categories, rather than vice versa). It is unencyclopedic and unreflective of NPOV to have a different standard for hatred of Muslims than for hatred of any other group, and by treating anti-Muslim hate groups as "opponents" or "critics" of Islam, we convey on them an impression of legitimacy unsupported by the sources. !Votes here that recommend deleting the categories because it is right to oppose Islam, such as Johnpacklambert's and Benkenobi18's, or that conflate hatred of Muslims with opposition to Islamism, should obviously be discarded as POV-motivated and worthless to the discussion. (Re: Category:Anti-Judaism - it's a category I've always found weird, and I would certainly not have a problem merging its contents to Antisemitism, Persecution of Jews, etc.) – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 18:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: To summarize the debate, we have a number of keep votes, presenting rational arguments. Of the delete votes, most votes do not present any other arguments than WP:IDONTLIKEIT (and refuse to take into account the existence of identical categories for antisemitism) and very few if any present valid reasons based on policy and sources. It appears to me that we have a consensus to keep the Islamophobia categories, consistent with earlier decisions to keep the Antisemitism categories, and consistent with evidence presented in the main article on Islamophobia, its talk page and elsewhere. JonFlaune ( talk) 16:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment stating that a term is inherently a violation of the rules of NPOV and involves an attempt to marginzalize certain opinions is not a case of sayng "I don't like it", it is a case of stating the name violates wikipedia policy. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment We have a controversial word that is highly politicized and widely criticized as a vague polemical term unsuited for analytical exposition. It’s application is a constant source of conflict, revert wars, and “my sources are better than your sources” conflicts. Thus the “deletes” see a “bias”, POV, “non-neutral”, loaded-term while they see better neutral terms to use. The “keeps” note that it is used by some and the “deletes” note it is abused by others. Experts (outside of political institutions) find the term questionable and misleading. A consensus for a more generic neutral term can be reached as it has for other topics. Jason from nyc ( talk) 18:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC) reply
    • The word is only controversial among the far-right extremist fringe. It is the accepted and established term used by virtually all scholars and official institutions, such as European Union and United Nations agencies. Again you present your own opinion only, ignoring sources. As long as we have antisemitism categories, we cannot treat hatred of muslims differently with a "more generic neutral term" whitewashing Islamophobia, that's racist double standard. JonFlaune ( talk) 00:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC) reply
      • This is obviously not true as the article on Islamophobia clearly shows. Critics include scholars who focus on anti-Muslim bigotry (Jackson, Imhoff) and we can now include Cesari provided by Ankimai above. You're presenting your point of view and it has no relations to the facts of the article. As for the EU & UN ... that only proves that the word is indeed "controversial word that is 'highly' politicized" as I said above. The EU doesn't define the English language and this is an English language Wikipedia. Jason from nyc ( talk) 03:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC) reply
        • Wikipedia is written from the mainstream point of view, not the extreme fringe point of view. Islamophobia is the official and established term for hatred against muslims [5]. JonFlaune ( talk) 23:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC) reply
          • No, it is not. Please stop trolling. A lack of clear meaning, interpretation and ownership first became apparent with the researches of the European Monitoring Centre for Racism and Xenophobia’s (EUMC) Summary report into Islamophobia in the EU following 11 September 2001. Despite having asked each of the then fifteen national focus points employed by the EUMC to define ‘Islamophobia’, for many it was something that was seriously problematic, meaning that the end result was inconclusive. (Chris Allen, Islamophobia and its Consequences, 2007). -- Ankimai ( talk) 19:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC) reply
            • But you're pulling this quote from a comprehensive book on Islamophobia by a world-recognized scholar of Islamophobia. How can you possibly be using this to argue against the use of the term? If you actually read the source, it explains very clearly that the question isn't whether Islamophobia exists or whether the term is in mainstream use, but rather how different governments define it for primarily legal purposes. Compare pornography: the fact that different definitions might exist does not mean that the phenomenon does not exist or that the term is not used. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 17:00, 7 August 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
  • keep as per roscelese.--  altetendekrabbe  19:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Merge to 'Category: Anti-Islam'. "Islamophobia" is a POV name, Wikipedia can and should do better than that. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 22:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A POV fork category already twice concluded as such, here and here. As "Opposition to Islam in Europe" and "Anti-Islam" categories exist, this is just another viewpoint at that. Some people are comparing this with "Antisemitism in Europe" category. If you look at those categories, they have articles like "Holocaust in Norway", not living persons or organisations. -- Pudeo ' 01:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Funny how JonFlaune claims that the Islamophobia category is somehow the current consensus. In fact, checking the logs for the page you can see it was deleted seven times based on consensus. Essentially, the same persons kept recreating the category – bashing your head into the wall is not creating a consensus. JonFlaune re-created that main category only 14 days after it was deleted and protected for the last time. And now we're discussing about the subcategories based on that recreation. -- Pudeo ' 01:46, 8 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
  • Delete all - as above, the term is a partisan neologism. Neutral terms exist for opposition to Islam; this isn't one. ProhibitOnions (T) 18:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC) reply
    • More completely unsupported assertions (i.e. the WP:FRINGE view that Islamophobia (=hatred and prejudice against Muslims) is "opposition to Islam") and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Should we describe Antisemitism as opposition to Judaism too? JonFlaune ( talk) 01:42, 10 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

  • Are there any "popular psychology" publications that can be classified as "peer-reviewed academic journals"? If yes, can you give an example? -- Guillaume2303 ( talk) 13:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom. – Fayenatic L ondon 13:02, 27 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

  • Comment: yes, a cat "Behavior genetics journals" could be categorized into "Psychology journals" and "Neuroscience journals". I would have much preferred to do without this cat, though. Behavior genetics is a very interdisciplinary field and it would have been better to categorize individual journals in the main cats: Genes, Brain and Behavior is really the only one ranking as a Neuroscience journal, for example. Neurogenetics is a journal that comes close to the journals in this cat, but is not really a Psychology journal. The Journal of Neurogenetics is also a neurobehavioral genetics journal, but, again, not really a Psychology journal. Anyway, now that the cat exists, renaming it is probably the best option. -- Guillaume2303 ( talk) 13:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to Category:Behavioural genetics journals, adding -al per lead article Behavioural genetics. – Fayenatic L ondon 13:12, 27 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: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
  • Comment If they can't be merged, then they're too vague and need to be listified. - jc37 02:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename: to Category:Deist philosophers or perhaps Category:Deist writers, and prune the contents to fit. I've added the cat into Category:Religious philosophers and made that a sub-cat of Category:Religious writers (Philosophers categories are generally sub-cats of the corresponding Writers). – Fayenatic L ondon 14:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename I agree with Fayenatic. Deists list those whose personal beliefs are deist but may not write about or philosophize on the matter. Just like you need a restricted category for Catholic philosophers that is distinct from the category of all Catholics, one hopes to find a category specifically on those who write about or philosophize on deism. I understand both categories (i.e. Deists and Deist thinkers) are small. Still I lean towards: Rename and subsume under religious philosophers. Jason from nyc ( talk) 14:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Delete. If the persons so listed do not actually claim or write to be Deists then they must be removed from the Category. I'm seeing things like Gauss on them, (who was in fact Christened. He is 'believed to be a Deist' from secondary sources, but never actually claims to be one. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 00:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply
      • Good point but I'm not clear if you want to delete both categories. I'm wary of listing adherents as opposed to writers and philosophers who actually expound on or advocate deism. See WP:Categorization of people for guidelines. Thus, I'd rename the thinkers category to philosophers (and delete those who do not have substantial writings on deism) while perhaps deleting the deist category. Jason from nyc ( talk) 13:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to Category:Deist writers this is already in the established writers category. We have various writers categories, we do not do thinkers categories. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename Category:Deist thinkers to Category:Deist philosophers. Several of these were preachers. Are we certain that they (and all future members) are all writers? - jc37 03:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to Category:Deist philosophers. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:08, 11 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: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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_25&oldid=1142606008"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE