Category talk:Islamophobia

Categories

Should this be a sub-category of Category:Islam? Category:Antisemitism is a sub-category of Category:Judaism... AnonMoos 02:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. // Liftarn

...and you've added the famous category:racism as well, so much for Jeffs peace initiative I suppose. I've asked second opinions about this (again) instead of reverting, just because I'm a patient and peaceminded guy ;o) Finn Rindahl 14:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so indulgent, especially since Liftarn seems to be displaying conspicuous bad faith in constantly extending "Category:Racism" to new Islamophobia-related images and categories, even though he's very aware of the fact that this is highly controversial and disputed, and has resulted in him being referred to the Administrators' Noticeboard. AnonMoos 14:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That I actually have the evidence to back it up and you don't should show something. // Liftarn

You don't have any "evidence" which even comes remotely close to outweighing the almost unanimous testimony of the great majority of English dictionaries in this matter. However, any extended discussion of your seemingly malicious activities in bringing artificial "controversy" to ever-new categories and images should probably occur in the de facto centralized area for such discussions Image talk:Gathering of eagles.jpg... AnonMoos 14:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Categories revisited

So we have academic reports saying islamophobia is anti-muslim racism vs you what you think. Well, let me see what I believe in the most... "Islamophobia is as much a form of racism as anti-semitism"[2] // Liftarn

Your knowledge of racism appears to be chiefly confined to a certain smug satisfaction in being able to use Wikimedia Commons as a platform in the dissemination of extremist hate screeds by that vicious racist hate-bigot Carlos Latuff. Since you've been aware for about five years that the quasi-consensus on Wikimedia Commons is against misapplying the "Racism" category in the way that you want to misapply it, your misguided persistence would appear to spring almost purely from malicious trolling. AnonMoos (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Please try again, butusing facts and proper arguments instead of personal attacks. // Liftarn (talk)

Whatever, dude -- this was discussed into the ground almost five years ago at Image talk:Gathering of eagles.jpg. Your raw Google Books link (with no other indication of the nature of the alleged source) would not be acceptable as a citation or reference for a Wikipedia article, and is almost completely worthless for me, since I don't like Google Books, I'm not good at Google Books, and it sometimes comes close to crashing my browser. Since you don't come to this subject with very clean hands, and the past quasi-consensus has been against you, therefore it's really entirely up to you to find claimed-relevant sources and present them in a useful and acceptable manner which allows them to be evaluated... AnonMoos (talk) 23:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Consensus may change and in the light of new and better sources (regardless if you like them or not) does not change the facts. // Liftarn (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

At this point, it's not a matter of me liking or disliking it, because you haven't cited it or presented it in any form which is at all usable by me, so I actually have no idea what it is. However, it would take something pretty solid and impressive to overturn the testimony of almost all standard English dictionaries... AnonMoos (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Your argument so far is only based on "I don't like Google Books, I'm not good at Google Books", i.e. only what you like or not. That is not a valid argument. We have an article in Journal of Sociology calling islamophobia "anti-Muslim racism"[3] and in Social Work and Minorities: European Perspectives we can read that "Islamophobia is as much a form of racism as anti-semitism". I don't think it would be helpful to remove antisemitism from the the racism category so here we are. // Liftarn (talk)

Dude, I'm really not going to recapitulate the previous tiresome tedious discussions at Image talk:Gathering of eagles.jpg. If you have something new, and you're willing to present some of its bibliographical details in acceptable/accessible form (e.g. not a raw binary Google Books link, with no accompanying indication of author, title, etc.), then it might be considered -- but it would take something pretty solid and impressive to overturn the testimony of almost all standard English dictionaries (and what you have presented previously has conspicuously failed to come anywhere near doing so)... AnonMoos (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you will have to do better than "Lalala! I'm not listening!". Instead of just repeating myself could you perhaps read at en:Islamophobia#Links to other ideologies. // Liftarn (talk)

Whatever: if you first tell me what it is (author, title, date), then I may decide go to Google Books to view it -- but in the current context, I'm simply not going to follow a "blind" link to a raw Google books URL, with no idea what it is beforehand (since I find the Google Books experience to be rather unpleasant, I restrict my use of it to things that I have a definite active interest in viewing). You might consider this to be slightly idiosyncratic on my part, but on the other hand, a raw Google books URL would not be acceptable as a citation in a Wikipedia article, so I really don't think I'm out of line to demand just a little bit more than that here.

In any case, you used the "la-la-la" strategy far more than anyone else in the discussions at Image talk:Gathering of eagles.jpg. In fact, I notice definite tendencies towards what psychologists would call "projection" on your part. You promote and defend the hatemongering of vicious bigoted racist Carlos Latuff, yet you're quick to label some of those who dare to have opinions different from yours as "racist". You have an extreme capacity to simply ignore and disregard everything which contradicts your preconceived positions, yet you're quick to accuse others of "la-la-la"-ing, etc. etc. AnonMoos (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, if you have problems with follow weblinks you can look it up in Social Work and Minorities: European Perspectives Johnson; Soydan; Williams (1998) pages 182 and xxii or Scott Poynting, Victoria Mason (2007). "The resistible rise of Islamophobia" in Journal of Sociology. And I again ask you to stop your personal attacks. They do not move the discussion forward in any way. // Liftarn (talk)

Category:Racism

"For example, since Jews and Muslims define themselves – and are defined by others – through reference to race and religion" the Category:Racism is appropriate both for Category:Islamophobia and Category:Antisemitism. // Liftarn (talk)

The fact that in five rounds of responses above, you were completely and utterly incapable or unwilling to give me any indication or preview of what lies behind a raw Google Books URL does not predispose me to give great attention to any supposed "sources" adduced by you -- which would have to be extraordinarily solid and impressive to overturn the basic meanings of words as attested in almost all English dictionaries -- and certainly also forcibly reminded me of how you remain just as pointlessly irritating and annoying as you were in the past. P.S. During most of the 20th century, Muslim apologists speaking to Westerners often made a big point of stressing that Islam was race-blind and NOT defined by race, and Malcom X converted to "orthodox" Islam for mainly that reason. Wonder why it is that some are trying to change the story at this late date... AnonMoos (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The fact that I actually did exactly what you asked of me (look again if you missed it). But you can also look at a few other references. Judaism is race-blind but antisemitism is a form of racism. The same relationship exists between Islam and islamophobia. // Liftarn (talk)

Dude, I went into great detail about how your analogies between Judaism and Islam are not very accurate or insightful (except possibly in Bosnia) at File talk:Gathering of eagles.jpg, and I'm not going to recapitulate those discussions here. Judaism takes no account of "race" in the modern meaning of the word, since this modern meaning of race didn't really exist until at least the Renaissance, but no convert to Judaism can ever become a Levite or a Cohen, and in several countries (including the United States and the Soviet Union) "Jewish" functions as an ethnic identity, including a significant number of people who whole-heartedly identify themselves as ethnic Jews but disclaim most (or even all) specifically-Jewish religious beliefs -- while in an Islamic context, similar individuals would be known as "apostates", not "ethnic Muslims"!!!!! (So much for your attempted analogies.)

And I made the rather reasonable request that you provide a little basic information (author, title, etc.) on the raw binarylink http://books.google.com/books?hl=sv&id=MgtLIZAfPaoC&q=Islamophobia+is+as+much+a+form+of+racism+as+anti-semitism#v=onepage&q&f=false (i.e. a little information beyond MgtLIZAfPaoC), so that I wouldn't have to follow a "blind" Google Books link (something which I don't usually do). We went back and forth on this five times, but I still don't know what the answer is, so you haven't answered the question -- apparently because of your sheer love of recalcitrant obstreperousness, or your desire to aggravate and annoy other people as much as possible. If you were trying to gain my confidence and good will, then you certainly went about it in an extraordinarily perverse and inept manner, and your stubborn uncooperativeness on that point certainly doesn't predispose me to pay any great attention to any other alleged sources adduced by you -- which in any case would have to be extraordinarily solid and impressive to overturn the ordinary meanings of English words as found in almost all relevant dictionaries... AnonMoos (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

See the multiple sources provided in the section below. I can't help you read them so you will have to do so yourself, but for some I have highlighted relevant sections. // Liftarn (talk)

I did not originally attach great importance in itself to my request for info as to what lies behind a raw binary Google Books URL, but your persistent refusal to give a simple courtesy certainly throws a negative light on your personality and basic character as a human being (as has been the case for all of my significant interactions with you since ca. 2006 -- not to mention your promulgation of the hatemongering of vicious racist bigot Carlos Latuff), and does not predispose me to give you the benefit of the doubt in other areas. AnonMoos (talk) 03:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Apart from spewing hatred, do you actually have any valid arguments or facts to back up your views? I know I do. // Liftarn (talk) 09:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Islamophobia is neither racism nor (despite the silly name) a psychological phobia. It is merely a strong religious belief, i.e. that Islam is a false religion. Many religions are largely defined by their dislike for other religious beliefs - Satanism, Eckanckar, Seventh Day Adventists etc. (I would count atheism, which is in my broad definition a religion with an unprovable belief in the lack of omnipotent beings) If you can think of a category for them go for it; I'm thinking "criticism of religion".

I should note that ordinarily, Commons wants to avoid senselessly giving offense to photographic subjects, and calling people racists can be offensive - therefore I think it is a very bad idea indeed to dump pictures of identifiable people into "Category: Racism" by default, as the operation of some mindless categorization software, without having a human editor think about whether racism is that person's intent. Wnt (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You are entitled to an opinion, even if it is wrong. As you can see several reliable sources say that islamophobia indeed is a form of racism. Calling people islamophobes can also be offensive, but we have only tagged self-identified islamophobes so that should not be a problem. // Liftarn (talk)

But it's just wrong to call it racism. I mean, if somebody has Mr. w:Adam Gadahn in a cell and decides to take a piss in his Koran, that's not expressing any racial bias against him. It's a matter of mocking his beliefs. And as long as many people see it that way, it is not something unequivocal enough to class under "Racism". Wnt (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

It is wrong as far as I can tell also, to the strictest definition of British/American english. Racism is about race, and so anti-semitism and anti-islamicism would both be ruled out. The category is about people finding what they are looking for, and in many languages there is no word for islamophobia, Indonesian for example. English as a second, third or whatever language people would look for the most commonly used conversational word. Language is like that, not strict. In fact nobody can ever agree on what is the strictest definition of British or American english because they are constantly changing and vary from place to place. There is a reference which Liftarn found in relation to the eagles image, there are dictionaries which define racism as including hatred based on religion, so using entomology alone doesn't seem to address the conversational use properly. Erring on the side of caution seems appropriate when there is plenty of evidence like there is here. Penyulap ☏ 20:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

That is the category given to English Wikipedia article. English Wikipedia has much more people involved that can discuss this kind of issues, so I am planning on following their lead here. --Jarekt (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

well, keep in mind that commons is not able to follow en.wikipedia because commons serves many projects, cultures and language variants. People who speak english don't all come from english speaking countries, and the demographics differ between en.wiki and commons. I would think including all the relevant categories for all the relevant cultures is a lot better than deciding which point of view is correct. Penyulap ☏ 21:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if another language has a term that includes racism + islamophobia (+homophobia, anti-Catholic sentiments?) I would translate it as "bigotry" rather than "racism". I might, reluctantly, be willing to accept seeing that plastered under a picture like that. Still, it's not clear that such overarching philosophical categories are really necessary. Wnt (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I see your point, but there are more speakers of english as a second language than there are speakers of mandarin if I recall correctly. You would choose bigotry and so would I at first, however not every english speaker has as wide a vocabulary of words to choose from. Singlish, Japlish, Indolish, most variants of english I know of that are based on a slight mixture of languages also reduce the number of words people have to learn to get the job done. Actually I just looked it up and there are three times as many people who speak English as a second language than there are native speakers of english, so it's worth not ignoring them. There is no word for Islamophobia in indonesian or many other languages, and when it is translated by the majority of english speakers the three quarters who speak it as a second language may have a hard time finding it if it was put ONLY in the category 'bigotry' which is not as popular a word, it's not one that people learn first off. You and I understand it, but we understand a great many words. It's not some original thinking to put it into racism though, we have references and we have dictionaries to support the usage so it's not as if it's controversial. Leaving it out is what needs justification in light of these references, leaving it in doesn't cause confusion, hiding the image is what needs justification because POV pushers want to do that all the time, and without references, what else can it be ? This much controversy doesn't happen everywhere. Penyulap ☏ 19:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Jarekt -- as I said on the Admin User problems board, Liftarn has significant influence over the en.wikipedia "Islamophobia" article, so that introduces a certain circularity. In any case, Commons is not en.wikipedia... AnonMoos (talk) 11:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Not being en:wp may be more reason for inclusion. En:wp has many heated discussions about BLP category inclusions. Our goal here is to make files easier to find an not decide on 'enthno-tagging' of BLP en:wp articles.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what BLP has to do with this controversy. AnonMoos (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

AnonMoos, it would be interesting if you could tell some more of this magic ability I have to cause people to suddenly forget everything about en:WP:NPOV and en:WP:V just by making a few edits. Or is it that I use some sneaky "rhetorical tricks and argumentation maneuvers" such as bringing in reliable sources. // Liftarn (talk)

racism

For a long time an editor has tried to use this category to push far right conspiracy theories[4]. Why not simply accept the long standing consensus and use the header text from English Wikipedia? // Liftarn (talk)

Whatever -- as discussed at length at File_talk:Gathering of eagles.jpg, Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_4#User:Liftarn and elsewhere, the common established accepted usage of the term "racism" doesn't generally cover ideological or political or philosophical or religious affiliations (with some exceptions for relatively small "ethnic" religions, of which Islam is not an example, unless perhaps in Bosnia only). Of those who have expressed a more or less definite opinion on the subject, a predominant majority have been against Liftarn's position -- excepting the "hatred of chess players is racism" guy, of course... As for the more recent stuff that Liftarn has pulled up through random internet searching, ever since Liftarn conspicuously refused above to indicate the author or title of what was behind a raw Google Books URL (since I don't like Google Books, I'm not very good at Google Books, and my browser doesn't always work well with Google Books), I really don't know or care what that is. In any case, as I said several times above, a raw Google books URL, without indication of author or title, would not be acceptable as a reference for a Wikipedia article. And of course, as always, I'm distinctly unimpressed by the forceful contrast between Liftarn's passive-aggressive smarmy smirking smug self-satisfaction that he has managed to "game the system" and use Wikimedia Commons as a platform for the dissemination of Carlos Latuff's bigoted hatemongering vs. his perpetual determination to label anyone who disagrees with any of his positions as a "racist"[sic]. After six years of this nonsense, it's really time for it to end.

P.S. Liftarn doesn't have enough information available to him to deduce that I'm "far right wing"[sic], and in fact in many respects I'm rather leftish in the political context of where I live, so that's all nonsense too... AnonMoos (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Please see en:Islamophobia from where the text is taken. There is a long standing consensus for that version both there and here until you started an edit war to promote far right conspiracy theories. Note that I'm not saying anything about your political affiliation of which I know nothing, but I do recognize the conspiracy theory you are promoting and it originates from the far right. Anyway this is a moot point as the facts speak for themselves. // Liftarn (talk)

Dude, on Commons Category:Islamophobia the "consensus"[sic] that you're trying to conjure up out of thin air simply does not exist here -- and in fact, the weight of expressed opinion has been predominantly against you (always excepting the "hatred of chess players is racism" guy, of course). Last summer I suffered repeated Internet outages, and each time when I was able to get back on-line I had more important things to immediately attend to than your nonsense, and I was also distracted by the London Olympics, so that I kind of lost track of the state of this page, with the result that your version of the page was unchallenged for a year until Dbachmann came along. However, inadvertent inattentiveness does not create a "consensus"[sic] -- and if you examine how much of the time since 2007 this category has been a subcategory of Category:Racism, and how long it hasn't been, then the "consensus" of length of time is also solidly against your version.

Furthermore, I would strongly advise you to start to get your own house in order before you start to randomly hurl around wild and loose political allegations at others, since your own ideological position is more contorted than a pretzel by the fact that the more bigoted and hatemongering Carlos Latuff is, the more you seem to love him, while you're also simultaneously passionately eager to label anyone who disagrees with you in the slightest degree on any issue as being a "racist"[sic].

If by "far right conspiracy theories", you mean Pamela Geller and Oklahoma State Question 755, then I don't care too much about them, and I'm certainly not inspired by them -- and I strongly doubt whether Dbachmann is either. In any case, I don't see much to choose from between Pamela Geller and Carlos Latuff (I would go far out of my way to avoid meeting either of them in real life).

My real inspiration is the ordinary meanings of words as they occur in usage, and as they are defined in the great majority of English-language dictionaries. A tiny minority of what I would consider pseudo-leftists and engagé intellectuals trying to redefine terminologies in order to tar everything that they personally disagree with with the broad-brush slur of "racism" does not change the common ordinary meanings of words, either -- not yet anyway. If I were you, I would just give the matter a rest, because your motives and actions might not stand up too well under close scrutiny... AnonMoos (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, your own personal views does not override papers in peer reviewed scientific journals. Please stop your whitewashing campaign. // Liftarn (talk)

Whatever, dude -- given your unclean hands in the whole Carlos Latuff affair, you have extraordinarily poor credentials to be delivering sanctimonious lectures to others... AnonMoos (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That says more about you than me, but if you could please leave personal attacks aside and focus on the issue at hand instead. We have several scientists in papers published in peer-reviewed journals that say that islamophobia indeed is a form of racism. Thus the category certainly is relevant. As for the intro text I would prefer the use of the intro text from English Wikipedia rather than some home brew conspiracy theory. // Liftarn (talk)

---

indentation reset

Graham's hierarchy of disagreement

In case anyone doesn't know what the second lowest from of discussion, second only to name-calling, is in the picture, Ad hominem means, according to the article of the same name,

"An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument.[2] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as an informal fallacy,[3][4][5] more precisely an irrelevance.[6]

thought that might help as guidance to move up the triangle, rather than down the triangle. Penyulap ☏ 09:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It's nice of you to try to elevate the level of the discussion, but I've had a close up view of Liftarn in action in various places for about seven years now, which has not given me a great deal of respect for his integrity in most respects (viz. the striking contrast between his attitudes towards Latuff and Islamophobia), and he continually repeats a little set of rhetorical maneuvers and argumentation mannerisms which never fail to have an overall annoying and aggravating effect without casting much light on the subject -- such as in the current context his trying to slander me as "racist" and "right-wing"[sic] (check out some of Liftarn's edit summaries on the category page itself...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 10:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, if that's a problem, then rather than describing Liftarn and how little respect you have for him, and describing his contributions as 'rhetorical maneuvers' and 'argumentation mannerisms' and so on, why not try to climb up the triangle eh ? Rather than attacking the editor's mannerisms, address the actual points he raises. Just a thought. Penyulap ☏ 11:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I would certainly follow your advice if I thought that there was any possibility that any combination of facts, evidence, and argument would lead Liftarn to revise any of his positions. AnonMoos (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you can try to bring forward some facts and evidence instead of just going "poor me, everybody hates me, I don't like it, I don't like Liftarn...". // Liftarn (talk) 08:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no real need to copy or manufacture a whole article on this page, so it doesn't need to be that long, but to summarize all the dictionaries, books, media and thinking on the subject, we can go with something from the article in each language. So where the en.wiki article is a summary of all the english language material on the subject and Hebrew wiki is a summary of all the Hebrew language material on the subject, we can just follow along like that, 'Keepin' it simple'. Japanese, Korean and so on. The lede of the articles are a basic summary of those corresponding articles, so just using an exert from the lede is a no-brainer solution. Penyulap ☏ 09:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Liftarn is the one who greatly expanded the descriptive text in the category page (until Dbachmann tried to cut it back again), but the dispute is not really about the descriptive text, it's about "Category:Racism" (and has been ever since 2007)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

And that version was universally accepted and stood for a long time until you decided to instead promote conspiracy theories. As for the categorisation as racism is is clearly acceptable both because it has been used for a long time and because that is how it is described in reliable sources as well as on English Wikipedia. Also categories should be used to help people find media for various subjects, not hide them. // Liftarn (talk)

Liftarn in your immediately preceding message, your usual weaseling is trending dangerously close to out-and-out blatant pants-on-fire lying. In the various pre-August-2013 discussions, you have never received unequivocal support from anyone participating in the discussions except for the "hatred of chess players is racism" guy. And during the great majority of time from the moment Category:Islamophobia was created to the present, it has not been a subcategory of Category:Racism -- with the exception of a year from summer 2012 to summer 2013, when it fell off my to-do list and I kind of lost track of the state of the page, until User:Dbachmann came along and corrected some of the problems. So your flimsy spin about "universally accepted" is unfortunately utter nonsense... AnonMoos (talk) 02:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the current version[5] is an acceptable compromise. // Liftarn (talk)

Of course, since your notion of a "compromise" is that you should crush the opposition by prevailing on all essential issues... AnonMoos (talk) 02:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should try to come up with some valid argument instead of silly name-calling. // Liftarn (talk)

AnonMoos and Liftarn can you guys take a break from editing on this subject. Obviously, you are not going to convince each other and in the mean time you are wasting yours and everybody elses time. --Jarekt (talk) 01:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It actually looks like AnonMoos have already stopped except for inserting personal attacks. I recently found this that might be of help. // Liftarn (talk)

As long as Liftarn refrains from adding in the bogus "Category:Racism"[sic] -- which was not in this category as originally created, which was not included in the category for most of the time it has been in existence, and which he has received very little overt and explicit support for adding -- then there will be no problem. As for personal attacks, Liftarn's main reason for titling this section "Whitewashing racism"[sic] is to personally slander and slur me as a so-called "racist"[sic]. (After seeing Liftarn in operation for about seven years, I no longer have much tolerance for his repetitive monotonous rhetorical tricks and argumentation maneuvers -- which never impressed me too much in the first place, and have grown quite tediously tiresome and stale with endless iterations -- and his smarmy hypocrisy on such matters as Carlos Latuff vs. Islamophobia. Sorry, but that's my honest reaction at this point.) AnonMoos (talk) 10:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

For a long time the category have included both Category:Racism as well as the header text from English Wikipedia. Then you decided you didn't like that. As for personal attacks I have as far as I recall never called you a racist. As for your actions the edit history speaks for itself.[6] Could you perhaps suggest a more suitable headline without any personal attacks? As for calling the use of reliable sources (see section above) "rhetorical tricks and argumentation maneuvers" that is an interesting idea, but it will not bring the debate forward. // Liftarn (talk)

Why are you being dishonest about a matter that can be checked by anyone in the category edit history??? From October 2007 until Summer 2012, during the vast majority of the time "Category:Racism" was NOT on the "Category:Islamophobia, and no-one unequivocally supported your position except for the "hatred of chess players is racism" guy. During Summer 2012, due to various circumstances, monitoring this page became a low priority for me, and I kind of lost track of the state of the page until User:Dbachmann came along and fixed some of the problems you left behind. And you can have any number of headers to this section, as long as they aren't carefully chosen to insinuate that I'm a "racist"[sic] (one of your typical tricks that I've grown exceedingly tired of by now)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

So you do admit that the version you wanted deleted stood between the summer of 2012 up until now? You seem to insinuate that I in some way have called you a racist. Do you have any proof to back up that statement? No? Perhaps you should drop it then. // Liftarn (talk)

Yes, "Category:Racism" has been included on Category:Islamophobia for about 17% of the time that Category:Islamophobia has been in existence (calculated approximately by dividing one year by 5¾ years), and most of that 17% was due to inattentiveness, rather than anybody actively agreeing with you.

And you quite explicitly called me a racist in some of your edit summaries to the Category:Islamophobia page itself, and having seen you in action over the last seven years, I'm very aware that the section title "Whitewashing racism"[sic] was carefully chosen to insinuate the same thing... AnonMoos (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Where did that happen ? Penyulap ☏ 21:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I most certainly don't agree with the idea that the section title "Whitewashing racism" has anything at all to do with you, it has everything to do with you removing the category " RACISM " from Islamophobia. It is the name of the category and it's crying wolf to suggest otherwise, a clear personal attack, BY YOU AnonMoos, against Liftarn, by twisting where he is clearly talking about you removing the category 'racism', and makes that perfectly clear by providing the diff. Don't make personal attacks using lies like that, it's the fast-track to being ignored and putting an end to anyone listening to your long list of new arguments against the consensus. Liftarn took care to avoid anything personal in opening this section, referring to " an editor ". You seem absolutely incapable of lifting your comments to a higher level on that triangle representing the Hierarchy of Disagreement. You've gone steadily downhill rather than uphill, and this is getting close to rock-bottom. Penyulap ☏ 21:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

See the edit summaries on these edits: [7], [8]... -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

you whitewashed the word racism from the category page on the preceding edits of both of those diffs. here is the diff to the first time you did it, and here is the diff to the second time you did it, you censor the word and the explanation as well. Penyulap ☏ 21:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Both sides are correct

See: w:linguistic description and w:linguistic prescription. Commons may have to choose one side of the issue, through consensus, for all categories. This may anger the losing side but should make discussions shorter in the future.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it's more en:WP:RS vs en:WP:IDL, but Commons is not Wikipedia, but we should help people find what they are looking for and removing valid categories because you don't like it is not helping. And we actually don't have to choose as we can have both at the same time. // Liftarn (talk)

I think you are all wasting your time here because you will not reach consensus. You should just end the discussion and go to Commons:Requests for comment. The issue is the definition of racism depending on w:linguistic prescription or w:linguistic description. Commons needs to decide which one we will follow.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that people who want to change policy should go and change it. Nobody's stopping them. Also, it's not commons job to decide which line of thought, POV, or party is right or wrong. At the end of the day, if one of the things that Islamophobia is classified as by a good few out there real life people is, is racism, then that's where they'd look for it. There are even references, down to one of the exact images in the category, available. Doesn't get any better than that. If people are going to say that commons should start arguing about references saying this reference is right and that reference is wrong, that's not what commons has ever been about. Ever. Take it to proposals. Penyulap ☏ 12:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe1967 -- I don't think that this has much to do with linguistic description vs. prescription as those terms are commonly understood (see user problems board). AnonMoos (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

From: w:Dictionary#Prescriptive_vs._descriptive, "descriptive.....the meanings of words in English are primarily determined by usage, and the language is being changed and created every day." (Ned Halley, The Wordsworth Dictionary of Modern English Grammar (2005) p. 84) I think commons should follow suit. If the ones searching for images change the definition then so should we. I think they have with racism. If we don't change with the times and lock (prescriptive) the language here, we will look like Latin in a few years. Categories mentioned in this one.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's really the issue. The question is whether the premise is true or not, not what the words mean. If anti-Islamic sentiment is racism, is anti-Catholicism? Anti-Scientology? Anti-David-Koresh sentiment? Now I see two ways that you can try to blur the line: 1) You could say that the anti-Islamic sentiment is driven by an underlying sentiment of racism - that the guy here isn't really anti-Islam but just hates Arabs/Africans/Asians/etc. If anyone thinks that I think they badly misunderstand at least American anti-Islamic sentiments, which are rooted in the belief that Muhammad was a murdering brigand, not to mention a pedophile, whose mishmashed rendition of the Torah has no moral or spiritual guidance to offer. Or 2) You could regard Islam as a involuntary tradition people fall into through no fault of their own, and feel trapped in under fear of being executed as an apostate. This is a bit more credible, but certainly not absolute, and not clearly distinguished from some other countries with religious intolerance. Bottom line: Islamophobia is not a form of racism, no matter what definition of either you use, unless you simply redefine language to make it agree with a bad argument. Wnt (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

That is exactly what happened. The language has been redefined to include it in racism. En:wp or commons didn't redefine it, others did. We should make files easier to find for those that accept the new language. If we didn't then all of our categories would be in Latin, Germanic, or some other ancient language that our users don't look for files under.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Source? Do you have a dictionary that lists which religions it is racist to pillory? I mean it, I want to know if it's racist to deny the divinity of Charles Manson. Wnt (talk) 05:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Seriously man, there is a section on this page called #References and it is filled with,...wait for it, ... wait for it.... naa, I won't spoil the surprise. You can click the link and have a look at what is in the section called #References. I'll swap you a reference about the divinity of charles manson so that you can categorize those anti-manson images if you can find me references about poodles on Neptune ok ? fair's fair, can't do your homework if you won't do mine. Penyulap ☏ 08:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, the "Helter Skelter" book by the prosecutor mentioned that his followers saw him pick up a dead bird, breathe on it, and send it flying away (actually, bird biology in desert climates can be rather interesting - great demonstration, doubtless not so easy to get right the first try). There's still miscellaneous netsam like http://templeofatwa.tumblr.com/ floating around, but I haven't dug very deep. (Don't tug on that ... you never know what it might be attached to). Wnt (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

was it the songs of Solomon or another book that saw the child Jesus dobbed on by a tattle-taler for playing in the mud ? some sniping little brat went and got the pedantic elders to come and see Jesus 'working on the sabbath' by making clay sparrows. When they arrived and accused him, he clapped his hands and the sparrows he was 'making' flew away. Penyulap ☏ 22:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

w:Infancy Gospel of Thomas. I think we've gotten off topic here. Wnt (talk) 04:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds like the one. Off topic ? how did that happen, oh yes, I think it started with someone mentioning Charles Manson. Hmmm. Penyulap ☏ 07:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Dictionary definition of racism

I think the fresh and modern prize for the first page of pages on google goes to this definition:

Racists of any color or nationality are ignorant fucktards. that was at urban dictionary.

I think the dictionary definition prize for the first page of pages on google goes to askdefine.com because it says 'Dictionary definition' just in case you're a racist and you're looking it up after someone called you it, so that you know what the page is. MMm-kay ?

Dictionary Definition racist adj 1 based on racial intolerance; "racist remarks" 2 discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion [syn: antiblack, anti-Semitic, anti-Semite(a)] n : a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others [syn: racialist]

fromaudioenglish.org

RACIST (adjective) The adjective RACIST has 2 senses:

1. based on racial intolerance 2. discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion

www.wordnik.com

from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.

• adj. based on racial intolerance
• n. a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others
• adj. discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion

www.vocabulary.com

adj discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion

rhymezone

adjective: discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion

freedictionary.org

discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion;

mnemonicdictionary.com

Definition (adj) discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion

poets.notredame.ac.jp

ditto

lookwayup.com

ditto

blah_blah_blah.com

ditto

some_other_website.org

ditto

Yeah, I is seeing a pattern here. Penyulap ☏ 09:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, there's a pattern... sucky online dictionaries. :) At least Wiktionary is better than that. Wnt (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Ha! :D lol, yeah I know. But it's like I've said from the start, we're not talking about what is precise and correct according to the Queen of England's best english, we're talking about what people use to find the images they are looking for. 3/4 of the people who speak english speak it as a second or third or fourth language. Ignoring the obvious pattern of people and dictionaries that define it this way is just covering up the image making it hard to find. You need a reason for it, and now there are two sections jammed packed with references and we've yet to see a single reference or reason as to why it needs to be covered up, crappy or not. A pair of threes would still beat your nothing at all, and this is more than a pair of threes. Anonmoos comes up with name-calling as a retort to references, what do you come up with ? Penyulap ☏ 22:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Generally speaking I'm an inclusionist in articles - but inclusionism implies the need for good organization, and categories are organization. Dumping in sketchily related side-topics that the reader is perfectly capable of looking up doesn't make it easier to use, it makes it harder to use. Meanwhile you have someone who likely isn't a racist being labelled "racist", which isn't how we should treat people who pose for Commons pictures. I would be willing to have this category have a link to Category:Racism in the text, and for Category:Racism to link to Category:Religionism the same way (not all the specific sub-religion biases) with explanation that the term is sometimes extended to include such things. That's as far as I go. Wnt (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

What makes you say "someone who likely isn't a racist" that makes no sense, what supporting theory or evidence do you have for this ? as far as I can see this person not only hates people based on their religion, but is openly proud to hate on the basis of religion. Why would you vote them least likely to be racist ?

I agree that not everything needs to be included, like "Racists of any color or nationality are ignorant fucktards." according to the urban dictionary. So I don't support categorizing the eagles picture person as a fucktard, but as it is clearly accepted that a great many people consider racism to include religion and that there are references for this exact image, then I can't see it as controversial. I do see that your cross-linking suggestion has merit however. Penyulap ☏ 23:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

To point out the obvious, I think the reason why some bad dictionaries include "or religion" is that they are taking anti-Semitism to be a bias against a religion rather than a race. I think that is the only case they want to cover, but I think it is a huge mistake. The Nazis didn't care if Jews went and got baptized into a Christian church! And I don't think that atheist commentators who belittle Jewish religious traditions on an ideological basis deserve to be in any way associated with the anti-Semites; it's a totally different thing. That's not to say that there isn't an occasional anti-Semite who also mocks Jewish practices or makes up lurid stories about the rituals of the Elders of Zion, but that's just propaganda toward a purpose; it's not the purpose itself. Wnt (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, that is a one-sided point of view. Some people think that Judaism and being a Jew is a religion. Others suggest that because they descended from the arabs and can trace their lineage back to a particular arab and a girl of unknown origin, who could have also been an arab, that they are a different race altogether, but I don't know a great deal about that myself, I'd have to look it up. What I know is that there are two distinct schools of thought, one sees Jews as a race, the other sees it as a religion. I don't think picking out dictionaries that support one particular side of the argument and dismissing them is commons job any more than dismissing all atlases that show islands in the south china sea as belonging to a particular category. It's just a matter of recognizing that there is a significant number of users who consider it a certain way and another lot who consider it another way, and then finding common ground, or catering to both. Choosing sides is not commons job. Penyulap ☏ 23:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

My 1980 Webster's doesn't have religion under racism so it is probably since then that the language changed. Anti-Christianity may show up in newer dictionaries as well as other discriminations. Anti-Union and Anti-Wal-Mart may even be included in the future.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

maybe there is a compromise between the 33 year old dictionary and the bleeding-edge 'fucktards' maybe mid to late 1990's, sure it's not this century, but it's not whiplash either.

Something else we could do it take the most modern meaning and then shave a bit of the roughness off, smooth it out a little. Rather than quoting Urban dictionary saying that racists "are ignorant fucktards" we could say "are learned fucktards" pronounced learn -ed like judges do, it sounds quite a bit better, what do you think Canoe ? Penyulap ☏ 23:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

this section reserved for an editor to play the race card

I'll leave space here for what English wikipedia calls the playing the race card:

Playing the race card is an idiomatic phrase that refers to exploitation of either racist or anti-racist attitudes by accusing others of racism. which seems to be the thing that happens when someone presents a long list of irrefutable references. <glare@AnonMoos> Penyulap ☏ 09:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, the fact that you include Category:Anti-Semitism under "Racism", Category:Islamophobia under "Racism", but not Category:Anti-Christianity, is clearly biased against Christianity, which is to say ... "racist", the way you people are abusing the term. Wnt (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me for interrupting but where have I ever added any of these categories ? citation needed. I've never done any such thing. I have supported the addition of racism to this category by Liftarn after reviewing all the arguments presented by both sides. I haven't looked at the other categories or any arguments presented, I don't even know if there are disputes there. I tell you what though, if by adding "You" under my comment you mean me, Penyulap, then I'm not sure that I care to assist you elsewhere if you ask. If you mean 'You' as in commons editors in general, than that means YOU, Wnt, as much as anyone else. Penyulap ☏ 23:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, you plural. Maybe I should take that as reminder to go ahead and log an edit in this war, because we're not really getting anywhere in discussions. Wnt (talk) 04:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

well for me that isn't warring, you've simply found the common ground. I will of course continue to work towards a common ground that everyone is happy with. But for me, cross-linking both pages with a short explanation does the trick as people are still able to find what they are looking for. So for me, I support either or both methods. Penyulap ☏ 07:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Some people will probably never be happy so we should go for the option that makes it easiest for the users to find what they are looking for. As all the references provided shows that islamophobia is considered a form of racism then it should be found there on Commons as well. Please note that valid criticism of Islam is not islamophobia just as valid criticism of Judaism is not antisemitism. // Liftarn (talk)

I understand and I see your point. Something that may assist is an RfC. It's often the case that discussions appear deadlocked or are down to just voting and when even that doesn't solve it, a RfC brings opinions from random strangers. That can be helpful in to ways, one, they might think of something that hasn't been thought of in 7 years or so ;) two, if it 'voting' then it will usually provide enough votes from random commoners to see you through a few months or years. A strong written consensus is a helpful thing. I'm not saying that is what the RfC will give you, but it just may. If you think that would help I can list one when I have a few moments. Penyulap ☏ 09:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I think an RfC will come to the same conclusion that most modern dictionaries outweigh a few users at commons that claim dictionaries don't reflect adjustments to the English language. I see they keep trying to RfC it at en:wp and it keeps getting hatted because they provide zero sources compared to countless.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Horrible examples of categorization

Category:Antisemitism, Category:Islamophobia, Category:Anti-Christianity are all examples of horrible categorization. They all have both anti-religion and racist content which shouldn't be bundled together under racism. To be more specific...

• Category:Antisemitism (Category:Judeophobia - curiously missing, should be a soft redirect to Antisemitism) is littered with content that fall under Category:Anti-Israel (curiously does not exist) or Category:Anti-Judaism (curiously a sub category of Antisemitism instead of the other way around). Antisemitism is the more extreme case of Anti-Judaism and falls under racism. Personally I would separate Antisemitism under Nazi Germany under a subcat of Antisemitism.
• This category is also horrible specifically because it confuses Islamophobia (fear of Islam - racist, sub cat of Anti-Islam) with Anti-Islam (sentiment - not necessarily racist, curiously doesn't exist). There aren't many files so not a whole lot of room to complain but these two should be separate concepts where Islamophobia would be the subcat of Anti-Islam.
• Category:Anti-Christianity seems to be the best in the bunch but it suffers from the same problems in subcats such as in Category:Anti-Catholicism. Category:Christianophobia (racist, curiously missing) is not the same thing as Anti-Christianity (sentiment)

In sum Anti-<religion> categories should be about criticism/sentiment against a religion while the <religion>-phobia (inc. Antisemitisim) should contain racist content. Atheist sentiments for instance tend to be anti-religion but not racist while -phobia sentiments from various groups tend to be racist.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 18:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

There are problems, but I'm not sure your comments have clarified very much. "Christianophobia" is a somewhat borderline or marginal word in the first place, and I'm not sure that creating a category for it in addition to Category:Anti-Christianity would serve much purpose. And I'm not sure what an "Anti-Islam" category would cover that isn't already covered under "Criticism of Islam" and "Islamophobia". And "Anti-Israel" is currently called "Anti-Zionism". Similarly, I'm not sure what "Judeophobia" would cover that's not already covered by "Anti-Judaism" or "Antisemitism". And it's extremely hard to see how dislike of any non-ethnically-based religion can legitimately be called "racism"[sic], so if you wouldn't add Category:Racism to Category:Anti-Christianity, then it's equally just as much nonsense to add it to Category:Islamophobia (unless perhaps in Bosnia). AnonMoos (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

"Anti-Israel" should soft redirect to "Anti-Zionism" then. Racism can be over a number of issues. Gender, nationality, skin color, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or even trivial differences are some of the many reasons why people have hatred or intolerance towards others. My point is we need two class of categorization. One for hatred or intolerance towards said religion and other for simple criticism. Anti- something tends to be simple criticism. -fobia's tend to be severe hatred or intolerance. For instance islamophobia reads "hatred or fear of Muslims or of their politics or culture" on Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 22:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems me to be extremely doubtful whether any such theoretical clear and clean distinction between "Anti-X" and "X-phobia" actually exists in the real world, and it would not be a solid basis on which to conduct a major category restructuring. AnonMoos (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

You expect anything on hatred or intolerance to be clear and clean? Like always common sense should be applied on a case by case basis. My suggestion is a good compromise to handle the situation where we have clear hatred/intolerance/violence towards a religion and simple criticism. Alternative is calling everything racist just because some parts of it are. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 07:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

"Calling everything racist just because some parts of it are" is exactly what Liftarn wants to do (in fact, it seems to be his main motivation for getting involved in this matter at all), but I'm not sure how creating a lot of new categories, some with semi-strange names (such as "Christianophobia", which is barely even a word) will really resolve the issues... AnonMoos (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Names are a WIP, you are welcome to suggest alternatives. I merely tried to find a scheme that matches the existing scheme. My main point is the distinct two categories idea to separate racism and criticism. It could very well be something like Category:Racism towards Christians/Category:Racism towards Muslims vs Category:Criticism of Christianity/Category:Criticism of Islam or something similar. We would avoid the anti/pro/fobia sentiments too -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 00:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

It would be better than the admin-mandated version, but the problem is that this is purely power politics and our positions don't matter. Someone will revert any attempt to change the current status quo, saying "no consensus" - as long as a couple of people don't agree there is never a consensus - and they'll always arrange to have an admin lock it down in the present version right after. Yes, Virginia, you can win an edit war by fighting hard enough. I think it might be more practicable to nominate everything in the category for deletion. Wnt (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I've pointed out several times that Category:Racism has not been on Category:Islamophobia for about 5/6ths of the time that the category has been in existence, and during all that time until a month ago (almost six years!), there was only one significant advocate for including the category vs. a number of skeptics. According to any ordinary interpretation of consensus, this would mean that Category:Racism should actually be left off until there's a consensus that it should be included. Canoe1967's only reply to this is to change the meaning of "consensus" to refer to something completely different... AnonMoos (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Why is the history of the categorization remotely relevant? Point of categories is to allow quick sorting of files for people seeking to find similar content to them. Going to the dictionary definition to try to argue irrelevance of a category inclusion is not a good strategy. This isn't wiktionary. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 00:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Real dictionaries

The following are the top seven Google hits for "online dictionaries":

• Oxford dictionary: nothing about religion
• Merriam-Webster: nothing about religion
• Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English: nothing about religion
• Dictionary.com: nothing about religion
• Cambridge Free English Dictionary: nothing about religion
• The Free Dictionary: nothing about religion in definitions; mentions anti-Semitism, bigotry, and xenophobia (but not Islamophobia) in thesaurus
• Onelook.com: links 23 dictionaries, most of which I checked and found no evidence of a religious interpretation. Vocabulary.com mentioned anti-Semitism in a section which I'm not sure if it was a thesaurus or not. I had one refused connection from Encarta and a couple of pages requiring too many scripts for me to want to enable them all after yourdictionary brought my browser to a halt for a couple of seconds trying.

I cannot imagine what kind of effort it must have taken to cherry-pick all those bogus low-grade online dictionaries that were cited above to make it look like the word had been 'redefined in modern English', but the simple truth is that guess what, I still know English, and I still know racism is about race, not religion! Wnt (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Please see the #References. And if you check the definition of what a race is at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/race it say "a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics". // Liftarn (talk)

I'll give you points for desperation (a definition which allows for racism against nerds, racism against ballet dancers) but --- no. The link from racism at Merriam Webster is specifically to race[3], not race[2]. Wnt (talk) 06:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Really? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/race%5B3%5D defines it as "the act of running /../ a strong or rapid current of water flowing through a narrow channel". Sorry, when people try to define reality from short entries in dictionaries it looks very desperate. // Liftarn (talk)

Look under the noun. Or not. Now that the dictionaries disagree with you, they're no longer relevant, so at least we don't have to bother with those any more. Wnt (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, you mean where it says "a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics". I don't see how that helps your case. // Liftarn (talk)

I do not see the importance of dictionaries to begin with. Racism towards religion is a thing. Pretending such a thing doesn't happen just because dictionaries do not say so is at a minimum condoning it. I do not believe we should do this. That said we should distinguish racism towards a religion and criticism of it. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 23:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

real dictionaries ? could there be a more transparent attempt to bury all other meanings such as those you don't like ? Saying that a sh*tload of dictionaries 'aren't real' because they don't agree with you ? who said we agree with them either ? who said there needs to be agreement in the first place, this isn't the place for such arguments which are meant for article talk pages on local wikis where everyone argues until they turn blue. It's just commons. There are multiple categories for everything. People here don't play survivor and vote off the weakest category or whatever game it is supposed to be. There is plenty of room, ask anyone. Many people who have a thing against what you call 'real dictionaries' (because they suspect the Illuminati are behind them) look for this category under racism. It happens, a lot. Who are we to question the grand order of the universe. We're just here to find the top AND ONLY THE TOP category and EXTERMINATE EXTERMINATE EXTERMINATE all other categories because there can only be one highlander, no, wait, too many movies and tv. There is room for more than one category on this planet.

See, look at these nice dictionaries I imagined up when stoned. No, wait, they were on the net and I was sober, that means they are real doesn't it ? I can never remember which way around it is.

Dictionary Definition racist adj 1 based on racial intolerance; "racist remarks" 2 discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion [syn: antiblack, anti-Semitic, anti-Semite(a)] n : a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others [syn: racialist]

fromaudioenglish.org

RACIST (adjective) The adjective RACIST has 2 senses:

1. based on racial intolerance 2. discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion

www.wordnik.com

from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.

• adj. based on racial intolerance
• n. a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others
• adj. discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion

www.vocabulary.com

adj discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion

rhymezone

adjective: discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion

freedictionary.org

discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion;

mnemonicdictionary.com

Definition (adj) discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion

poets.notredame.ac.jp <-this one died. RIP.

ditto

lookwayup.com

ditto

blah_blah_blah.com

ditto

some_other_website.org

ditto

Yeah ok, those last two look dodgy, but the rest look convincing (nods) I just checked them, and one is dead. Should we count it as an imaginary dictionary or a dead link ? I know I'll replace it. There are heaps of dictionaries out there that define racism as including religion.

here is a great site called Racism, no way ! they say

Racist behaviour may include:

• Refusal to cooperate with other people because of their colour, ethnicity, religion or language

Racism may be direct or indirect, individual or institutional:

• Indirect racial discrimination can happen when a policy or rule treats everyone in the same way, but has an unfair effect on more people of a particular race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin than others. For example, a rule that says that students may not wear anything on their heads could result in discrimination against students whose religion require headwear.

askdefine

• 2 discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion

yeah, I'm bored, this could go on forever, with everyone finding dictionaries, websites and other sources and you saying which ones you like and which ones you think are imaginary or sticky or what is it, let me re-read the topic, oh yes "Real" what does that mean? Whatever. Is there a policy page on COMMONS yet about this crap of real or not real ? never heard of it. I think there are noticeboards for 'reliable sources' on some local wikis, you could take it to them, then come back with "Indian wiki says it's real and en.wiki doesn't" and we probably won't much care I guess, I'll try mind you, but commons just isn't that much into it, it's more an all points point of view rather than vote off all the little countries. Meh. Meanti8me I found plenty of sources to show it clearly IS considered to be a form of racism, and that is still more than needed. But I'd like to see a game where we vote off all but the strongest category one by one in a tribal council with games and a big prize at the end. I liked that guy with the beard who caught a lot of fish, what was his name I can't recall, but yeah lets do it!!! Penyulap ☏ 15:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

recent category edits (2014)

(cur | prev) 16:44, 4 February 2014‎ Mate2code (talk | contribs)‎ . . (1,510 bytes) (+42)‎ . . (No.) updated since my last visit (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 16:36, 4 February 2014‎ Penyulap (talk | contribs)‎ . . (1,468 bytes) (-42)‎ . . (Undo, no consensus for this on the talkpage, and a clear consensus against it.) (undo)
(cur | prev) 16:32, 4 February 2014‎ Mate2code (talk | contribs)‎ . . (1,510 bytes) (+42)‎ . . (Undo revision 115563057 by Penyulap (talk)) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 14:25, 4 February 2014‎ Penyulap (talk | contribs)‎ . . (1,468 bytes) (-42)‎ . . (Undo revision 115495886 by Mate2code (talk) per tp) (undo)
(cur | prev) 20:03, 3 February 2014‎ Mate2code (talk | contribs)‎ . . (1,510 bytes) (+42)‎ . . (Undo revision 115459509 by Liftarn (talk)) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 12:31, 3 February 2014‎ Liftarn (talk | contribs)‎ . . (1,468 bytes) (-42)‎ . . (Restore sanity per talk.) (undo | thank)

That's way too many reverts in a 24 hour period. Penyulap ☏ 17:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Stop hallucinating consensus, guys. Headlines of a talk section should not express an opinion. mate2code 17:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I put my last edits here, to avoid useless segmentation:

I am sure there is a lot of evidence out there, clearly proving that Category:Anti-communism belongs in Category:Racism too. Not to forget Category:Anti-capitalism, which according to reliable sources also somehow belongs in Category:Antisemitism. By the way: It's quite revealing to google "racism against the poor" and "racism against the rich". It's a thing, I tell you. Unfortunately, it's quite impossible to find "racism against the police", because of all the "accusations of..." hits. Have you seen how racist the leftist establishment (or something) is to the police? Not to mention these racist punks, who always call them racist names. Not to forget all the racism against politicians and lobbyists...
Seriously, guys. Some people try to change the meaning of words - academics among them, without any doubt. But wiki projects are never a place to take part in such attempts. Maybe they will succeed, and in this case the change will be reflected here. We don't need to turn this renaming treadmill before they succeeded. Maybe they never will. mate2code 21:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Penyulap. Let me say that your "english as a second language" argument does not completely suck. It's a bit bold of you to chuck correct English ("It is wrong as far as I can tell also, to the strictest definition of British/American english. Racism is about race, and so anti-semitism and anti-islamicism would both be ruled out."), but indeed: Categories are there to make things found. But then why are you not content with Category:Xenophobia, which was curiously missing, and which I included. This is the correct term, for what people are likely to search. For those who come from other languages and search for racism first (the word is more known than xenophobia) it would be appropriate to put a "see also" in Category:Racism. Your pragmatic approach makes you completely forget, that this is an attempt to actively change the meaning of an important word, to make a political point.
By the way: "so anti-semitism would both be ruled out" is wrong, because at least since the 19. century antisemitism was often (if not usually) also directed at former members of the Jewish faith. But have you ever heard of islamophobia against former Muslims? (Don't mention these idiots who speak of "atheist Muslims" - they also try to change the meaning of a word, to make a point. <sarcasm>Hey, let's create Category:Atheist Muslims!</sarcasm>)
Greetings, mate2code 17:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

while you are edit warring against consensus, please rest assured that i don't give a rats arse what you have to say, and I solemnly promise not to read squat of it. Penyulap ☏ 18:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's try not to be childish. Some people are tired. That's not consensus. mate2code 18:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

---

The consensus of 2007 was strongly against Liftarn. He picked up a few supporters in 2013 (the most persistent and indefatigable being yourself), but there are still strong dissenters, and I don't know that it's deserving of the name "consensus"... AnonMoos (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You are already forgetting Graham's hierarchy of disagreement. Again trying to discuss editors rather than content which you ignore. You've never had a meaningful argument on content, and as usual I invite you to present anything at all yet again. A shitload of people identify this category as a form of racism, and your only response is to focus on editors. Do you have anything new to report ? please, something, anything at all, it would be quite refreshing.

If you like to see it as "Liftarn picked up a few supporters in 2013" I would note it is quite a few actually, and whether you think other people are 'deserving' of acknowledgement or not is irrelevant. You don't have the numbers any more than you have the arguments. If you want to do a count, and I doubt that, please go ahead. I'd like to see you do it without ignoring other people's comments on this page. Up for it ? or ready with excuses and to back away from a tally ? No desire to address the arguments, no desire for a count, what do you have to present ? ad-hominem attack perhaps. There is nothing new under the sun I'm afraid. Penyulap ☏ 05:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Excuse my sarcasm, but if we have a biased headline, I prefer one in the spirit of Liftarn.
@AnonMoos: Penyulap is not just a follower of Liftarn. He actually has a point, that is not fueled by political sectarianism. But the answer to his point is cat:xenophobia, and maybe a "see also: xenophobia" in cat:racism.
@Penyulap: AnonMoos has already pointed out the essential problem here, and it is not a personal attack: "A tiny minority of what I would consider pseudo-leftists and engagé intellectuals trying to redefine terminologies in order to tar everything that they personally disagree with with the broad-brush slur of 'racism' does not change the common ordinary meanings of words" There is nothing left to add to this, except emphasis: tiny minority, try, redefine
Two questions:

• If islamophobia is racism, than why isn't it described in the article Racism in Israel? They mention racism against Arabs, and all the other disgusting crap. Maybe there is just no islamophobia in Israel? Or the article is whitewashed by people who push a pro-racism agenda?
• Should we put Category:Abortion in Category:Murder, because that's how some people define murder? ("Look at the sources!") I think it would be a bad idea. But it would be by far more legitimate - because this conservative definition of murder is much more accepted than the definition of racism as pretty much any hostility against a group of people.
  

mate2code 18:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Ah the old "other stuff do/don't exist" argument. Fail.
• If it is defined in that way in peer reviewed scientific journals you might have a point. If not it's also a fail. // Liftarn (talk)

• Saying "Ah the old xyz argument." is actually not a valid way to refute an argument.
• This is the official position of the law in some countries (see e.g. Gerardo Flores), so you can be sure about academic articles. So what point do I have now? That cat:abortion actually belongs in cat:murder? Unlike you I don't want to disrupt Commons to illustrate a point, so I'm not going to make that change.

You may try your luck in Category:Abortion, but first of all I think you should try your luck in w:Racism in Israel. There are many sources for islamophobia in Israel, so that should not be the problem. mate2code 21:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually it is. See en:WP:OTHERSTUFF. Do you have any papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals? Do you? Or are you just out to pick a fight? // Liftarn (talk)

Are you just out to label everyone who disagrees with your personal opinions as a "racist"? -- AnonMoos (talk) 03:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

No, where did you get that silly idea? // Liftarn (talk)

From the way that you've consistently behaved over the last six to seven years. AnonMoos (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Possibly from the way you have imagined things, but I can't be held accountable for your fantasies. // Liftarn (talk)

---

I had two questions:

• Q1: Why is islamophobia not described in w:Racism in Israel?
• Q2: Should Category:Abortion be in Category:Murder?
  

Your bullet points made me think that otherstuff was the answer to Q1, and peer-reviewed was the answer to Q2.
Now it seems to me that otherstuff and peer-reviewed are both answers to Q2. This indeed is a case of other stuff exists (w:WP:OSE), and there is nothing wrong with that. Consistency arguments are sometimes abused to defend articles about too many Pokemons or integers, but that doesn't mean that consistency is not wanted. It is wanted even in that very field (content inclusion in WP) - and all the more when it comes to categorisation.
The definition of abortion as murder is by far more notable than the definition of islamophobia as racism. If you don't see or understand that, that's ok. I'm not going to prove it to you. I have told you that it is the position of the law in "notable" countries like the USA (w:Gerardo Flores). If you think that the law is not notable, I can not help you. If you refuse to believe that the position of the law is inevitably reflected in law journals, I can not help you.
There is still question Q1. mate2code 13:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

That the Wikipedia article on racism in Israel is not as complete as you would like is not a valid argument. Feel free to expand it.

Have you found support for that view in peer-reviewed papers published in scientific journals? // Liftarn (talk)

Ongoing discussion after page protection

Yes, please add Category:Racism as that is how is is described in peer-reviewed scientific journals. A simple "I don't like it" should not be a valid counter-argument. // Liftarn (talk)

Please don't add it, since we've already gone through all that nonsense here, at Image talk:Gathering of eagles.jpg, and elsewhere. AnonMoos (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, the one where I posted several academic papers supporting it and you just went "I don't like it". Yes, very convincing argument. // Liftarn (talk)

You didn't post anything worth mentioning at Image talk:Gathering of eagles.jpg. You claimed to post several things on this page above, but by the time we had gone around and around on simple common-sense courtesies and your apparent willfull obstinacy in refusing to extend same (another manifestation of your uniformly charming attitudes), I wasn't interested in trying to look at them. In any case, usefully relevant dictionaries continue to say what they've always said. AnonMoos (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, "I'm not interested in sources" is a new one. // Liftarn (talk)

After you went out of your way to annoy and aggravate me, in the end I wasn't interested in looking at further sources adduced by you at that time, keeping in mind that your previous sources turned out to be fairly useless, and that usefully relevant dictionaries continue to say what they've always said. By the way, further negative light is thrown on your character (as if that were needed!) by your recent petulant POV-warring at Category:Antisemitism... AnonMoos (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should try to come up with valid arguments instead of personal attacks. // Liftarn (talk)

It's possible to defend the position that hatred of Jews/Judaism can often be more like racism than hatred of Muslims/Islam, and it's possible to defend the position that hatred of Jews/Judaism and hatred of Muslims/Islam generally involve a somewhat comparable degree of racism. The one position it's not possible to honestly defend is the position that hatred of Muslims/Islam is often be more like racism than hatred of Jews/Judaism -- yet that's your disingenuous position at the moment (and I'm not necessarily too surprised after having observed you in operation for 7 years now, possibly closer to 8 at this point). AnonMoos (talk) 11:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that both islamophobia and antisemitism are forms of racism. Both should thus be categorised as such. To have different categorisations for them would indeed be a form of bigotry. // Liftarn (talk)

---

I think this was cramming the wrong chapter, so I moved it here.
And yes: The position that antisemitism is racism is a NPOV, because antisemitism is traditionally (at least since the 19th century) also directed against former members of Judaism. mate2code 01:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

And islamophobia is also directed at former Muslims (as well as people who "look Muslim" such as Christians from the middle east, sikhs et.c.). // Liftarn (talk)

Islamophobia is directed at former muslims? So a typical islamophobe would hate/fear/dislike Salman Rushdie, Ehsan Jami and, lets say, Carlos Menem because they were once muslims? As far as I know this is not the case.

People who "look like muslims" may be mistaken for muslims - just like people who "look like thieves" may be mistaken for thieves, or people who "look like nazis" may be mistaken for nazis. This is unfortunate, but not particularly interesting. People who "look gay" are also likely to be bothered by homophobes, but that doesn't mean that homophobia is directed at them.

Your idea that islamophobia is directed not simply at members of islam is clearly not a NPOV. That antisemitism is directed not only at members of judaism is clearly a NPOV. That is all we need to know here. mate2code 15:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, cultural Muslims are also targeted by islamophobia. It's no wonder. And again I have the sources to back it up while you might need to read up on the subject. // Liftarn (talk)

I protected the page again

If there is need for changes, please discuss beforehand and me or other admin will do the change. --Jarekt (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

[...]

Please insert [[sh:Islamofobija]] inside. --Orijentolog (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done--Jarekt (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Islamophobia vs. opposition to Jihadist dictatorships and terrorists

While there's no doubt that Islamophobia is a form of bigotry, I don't like the fact that photos of anti-jihadist graffiti and other artwork is being falsely categorized as Islamophobia. I just removed this category from a decal with the international "No" symbol over the flag of the Taliban. --DanTD (talk) 00:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)