This category is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
This page should not be speedily deleted because it is a viable category that fits in with established schemes and all of the pages in it have been vetted to ensure that they are appropriate. ---- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It may be that the category just needs to go back for a discussion at CFD. The previous CFD was unanimous, but it was in 2007. The concern would not necessarily be that the initial creation is inappropriately done, but that over time it will be inappropriately applied to articles. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I will do is just move it to a CFD discussion, where I'll note the other discussions. I don't have a super-strong opinion on the issue one way or the other, I just knew that the category had been deleted before. I think Category:Critics of religions or philosophies has no doubt developed since the initial 2007 discussion. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a discussion about this here. I quoted your rationale for re-creation, but if you want to add anything else please do. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:Beyond My Ken re-inserting incorret categories, Secular critics vs critics[edit]
There was a recent discussion on categories of whether critics of Islam should be further sub-divided based on religion or philosophy. The result was to purge categories where the critism of Islam was not relevant, per WP:DEFINING. I recently started removing Category:Secular critics of Islam from articles were there was no proof provided in the article that the subjects criticism was secular based. In the past half an hour User:Beyond My Ken has been reverting my edits, and re-installing the former category which I belive to be inappropriate. When I messaged him on his talk page on the absolute lack of any connection to secularism Tommy Robinson (activist) has see here, she/he responded by saying that since there was no mention of religion in the Robinson article, his critism of Islam was by de fault secular see response, a logic that I find troubling since as an asumption it violates WP:VNT, WP:COP, WP:PROVEIT among other well established Wikipedia guidlines. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some of the articles with that I removed the secular critic category and Beyong my Ken re-installed it, with my reasoning why it shouldn't be in the former:
Tommy Robinson (activist) - doesn't say anything in the article about being secular, his opposition to Islam has more to do with his belife that Islam is incompatible with British culture rather than secular philosophy.
Anders Behring Breivik - Breivik use to be Lutheran and is now a Neopagan, neither of these religious beliefs are identified with secular thought
Cal Thomas - Thomas is an evangelical Christian writer, certianly not secular
Léon de Jong - doesn't say anthing about de Jong's views either on secularism or Islam
Brad Thor - doesn't say anthing in the article about Thor identifying with secular movements or philosophy
Ted Nugent - doesn't say anthing in the article about Nugent identifying with secular movements or philosophy
Lauren Southern - quite a bit in this article about Southern being identified as a white nationalist, nothing about secularism
Jörg Haider - Haider identified as a Christian, never once identified with the secular thought. Like Robinson his opposition to Islam has more to do with his belife that Islam was incompatible with Austrian culture rather than secular philosophy.
Kristian Thulesen Dahl - doesn't say anthing in the article about Dahl identifying with secular movements or philosophy
If the word "secular" is not even found in the article, it is pretty silly to say that they are a secular critc of... Inter&anthro (talk) 04:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Secualr" simply means "not related to religion", and it is silly to expect articles to say explicitly that so-and-so is "secular". Occasionally an article will say that the subject is an atheist or agnostic, but that's not really the same thing. Plenty of people do not hold religious beliefs without going so far as to un-believe.In any case, Inter&anthro's theory appears to be that if an article says that someone holds a religious belief, any religious belief, to any extent, then their criticism of Islam cannot be "secular", and, further, that the article must say that the subject is "secular" as well. I would say that the category as named might pertain to (1) Anyone who criticizes Islam who is not a religious leader of some sort, or (2) Anyone whose criticism of Islam is not about the religion, per se, but about Islamic societies. Given this ambiguity, it's a good idea to discuss what the category was designed to do, but whatever it was, I'm quite ceertain it wasn't made to support I&A's fairly extreme view.It should also be pointed out that mass removals of categories without first getting a consensus to do so may not be a direct violation of policy, but it certainly isn;t good Wiki-form to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First of all I never said that secularism and atheism/agnosticism were the same thing. My view is not extreme, it is only that there be some verifability that backs up the fact that an individuals critism has something to do with secularism if they are included in that category per WP:COP. If a article is placed in Category:Christian critics of Islam for example, it should apply when an individuals Christian belifes have something to do with their opposition to Islam. Likewise if a aritlce is placed in Category:Secular critics of Islam than there should be proof that the subjects secular philosophy has something to do with their criticism of Islam. This is not the case however for the articles above and many more. Moreso, some of the subjects of the articles, such as Anders Behring Breivik and Cal Thomas, are affiliated with a religious tradition, which makes their inclusion in this category even more inappropriate. Inter&anthro (talk) 05:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After further investigation, I take it that I&A took the recent discussion on CFD as carte blanche to make the edits that are disputed here, but I don;t believe that was the result of the discussion. If it was, then "Secular criticism of Islam" is a terrible choice for a category name, because of the ambiguity I mentioned above. I also note that in his objection to my edits on my talk page [1], I&A never mentioned the CFD discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about that I never mentioned the discussions? I notified you of this CFD discussion here and of the past CFD here. Inter&anthro (talk) 05:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A key wikipedia policy is WP:VERIFY. If it there is no verifiability on why a individual is critical of Islam, than they should simply be in Category:Critics of Islam. Inter&anthro (talk) 05:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to say that you're misconstruing the meaning of WP:V, and of how "secular" is defined. You assume that if an article says that the subject has expressed a religious belief, then their criticism of Islam must be "non-secular", when, in fact, "Secular" is the fall- back position unless the article specifically notes that the subject's criticism of Islam is rooted in their religious beliefs. In my opinion, the "Secular criticism..." category is a non-starter, and ought to be deleted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
