| Revision as of 00:46, 21 February 2014 editAtsme (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers42,819 edits →Should there be an islamophobia navigation template on here or not?← Previous edit |
Revision as of 20:05, 2 March 2014 edit undoAtsme (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers42,819 edits →Islamophobia Labels Are Reverse Discrimination: new sectionNext edit → |
| Line 27: |
Line 27: |
|
|
|
|
|
:::It appears there are far too many editors who are disregarding the requirements for NPOV. I've reviewed several articles on terrorism, including various bios of people who have been labeled Islamophobics by Misplaced Pages editors. This is deplorable behavior. I also noticed the same few editors consistently trying to hang Islamophobia labels on every organization, group, and/or individual who is/has been involved in exposing Islamist extremism. It's not an editor's job to diagnose a phobia. There is no question whatsoever that Islamophobia labeling is pejorative, especially in instances of BLP. Forget the medical qualifications, who gave such authority to layperson volunteer editors? Only qualified individuals in the medical field can properly diagnose a phobia. Where is the balance? What happened to NPOV? This behavior has to stop because it violates Misplaced Pages standards, and threatens our future as a credible resource. ] (]) 00:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC) |
|
:::It appears there are far too many editors who are disregarding the requirements for NPOV. I've reviewed several articles on terrorism, including various bios of people who have been labeled Islamophobics by Misplaced Pages editors. This is deplorable behavior. I also noticed the same few editors consistently trying to hang Islamophobia labels on every organization, group, and/or individual who is/has been involved in exposing Islamist extremism. It's not an editor's job to diagnose a phobia. There is no question whatsoever that Islamophobia labeling is pejorative, especially in instances of BLP. Forget the medical qualifications, who gave such authority to layperson volunteer editors? Only qualified individuals in the medical field can properly diagnose a phobia. Where is the balance? What happened to NPOV? This behavior has to stop because it violates Misplaced Pages standards, and threatens our future as a credible resource. ] (]) 00:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Islamophobia Labels Are Reverse Discrimination == |
|
|
|
|
|
WP Editors should follow the example of the AP's journalistic integrity and neutrality, and discontinue use of the words Islamophobia and homophobia. On 11/26/2012, reported the nixing of those words from the online AP Stylebook, and included the following quote: <i><b>"-phobia," "an irrational, uncontrollable fear, often a form of mental illness" should not be used "in political or social contexts," including "homophobia" and "Islamophobia." </i></b> I've made a similar argument on a few Talk pages where the labeling has been misapplied, and I'm sure there are more I haven't found, yet. Applying the label Islamophobia is as racist and discriminatory as what the label itself attempts to define, the latter of which is in clear violation of WP:POV. I've also noticed a rise in Islamophobia labeling, and it appears the same group of editors are usually involved as evidenced by the recent addition of the info box that now links the Investigative Project On Terrorism to the racist, discriminatory series on Islamophobia. Their actions and edits reflect an unmistakable prejudice to Islam. Any person or organization who is active in the fight against terrorism, or critical of the politics of Islam, or who oppose Sharia are among those targeted for an Islamophobia label. It has clearly gotten out of hand, and needs to be addressed ASAP. ] (]) 20:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC) |
An IP removed it. I think it's plausible given the number of RS which refer to this group as either Islamophobic or anti-Muslim or which refer to it in association with SIOA and other such groups, which makes it plausible that a reader might want to navigate amongst those articles.
WP Editors should follow the example of the AP's journalistic integrity and neutrality, and discontinue use of the words Islamophobia and homophobia. On 11/26/2012, Politico reported the nixing of those words from the online AP Stylebook, and included the following quote: "-phobia," "an irrational, uncontrollable fear, often a form of mental illness" should not be used "in political or social contexts," including "homophobia" and "Islamophobia." I've made a similar argument on a few Talk pages where the labeling has been misapplied, and I'm sure there are more I haven't found, yet. Applying the label Islamophobia is as racist and discriminatory as what the label itself attempts to define, the latter of which is in clear violation of WP:POV. I've also noticed a rise in Islamophobia labeling, and it appears the same group of editors are usually involved as evidenced by the recent addition of the info box that now links the Investigative Project On Terrorism to the racist, discriminatory series on Islamophobia. Their actions and edits reflect an unmistakable prejudice to Islam. Any person or organization who is active in the fight against terrorism, or critical of the politics of Islam, or who oppose Sharia are among those targeted for an Islamophobia label. It has clearly gotten out of hand, and needs to be addressed ASAP. Atsme (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Disclogo1.svg){kind=link}