 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text of the motion edit
If someone knows where to find the full text of the motion, please add a link to the article.--Kimdime (talk) 08:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Tense? edit
What should the tense of the article be now that the motion has passed? Should things be changed to the past tense ("was a motion", etc.)? RA0808 talkcontribs 18:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Discussion on Citations edit
Hi I'm not a Wikipedia adapt or anything so im not sure how to go about this (more of a writer which is self evident in this post) but I read one of the statements on the page "It was reported that hate crimes against Muslims more than doubled in a two-year period." which raised an eyebrow since I'm somewhat familiar of hate crime hoaxes and poor methods of quantifying hate crimes/speech etc.
(a good example of bad quantification of hate speech is cbc marketplaces special titled "'The Trump effect' in Canada" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBHK4WWDdq4&t=188s which regardless of politics or editing etc. had a study in the beginning claiming a "600% in hate speech in the last 12 months" and "Racist language use: Canada" on forms, comment sections and tweets which included many phrases such as @realdonaldtrump, Muhommad Ali, republican, France and ban Muslims in their quantification of "hate speech" and "racist language". for gods sake France is a place! so am i to believe that a comment "pray for France" is included in such collection because its not an ironic statement which was the only method of filtering in their sampling the study mentioned. i understand "ban Muslims" is at the very least contentious but i would argue a position on immigration policy isn't necessarily evidence of bigotry even if the policy itself or result is bigotry let alone racist as Islam has no race. and those moderate or neutral phrases, many of which were the big words which where the more significant ones in their quantification as they explained where thrown in with genuine racist or Neo Nazi language such as the N word and "Seig heil" which is a huge conflation and highly deceptive. I personally have either disagreement or outright disdain for white identitarian movements and DO NOT want them to grow because to simply put I think they are wrong and so when such atrociously dishonest hate crime/ hate speech studies are done it actually facilitates the grow of these movements 1. on the account humans rationalize liars as their positions being wrong. 2. lack of understanding these white identitarian movements leads to an inability to refute their arguments. its the cliche "knowing is half the battle" and not understanding the political terrain or "the enemy" (white identitarians in this case) is in my opinion leading to their disturbing growth. lets face reality: yelling deplorable Nazi scum isn't a Refutation of Neo Nazism as much as it is a true statement.)
So when I checked out the citation (it was number 16) I found it was a Toronto Star opinion piece and much to my non surprise it had not a single citation, reference or link to anything let alone the statement taken from it on this page. no study. no other article. nothing.
I would argue this is not appropriate for Wikipedia standards and is probably even worse than Wikipedia simply put such a claim on the website with no citation as a bad citation results in false sense of accuracy from the reader. Thank you for reading this and I hope this situation can corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.83.124.114 (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- So, aside for drastically misinterpreting the posted YouTube video, you were saying you didn't like that citation because it was from an opinion column rather than a news story. Problem solved, it has been replaced with the Global News story the opinion piece (and several brethren) were obliquely referencing: Hate crimes against Muslim-Canadians more than doubled in 3 years (April 13, 2016) which itself provides links to the relevant Statistics Canada data. In future, please try to be a bit more direct in your talk page comments... remember, "brevity is the soul of wit". RA0808 talkcontribs 07:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Neutrality tag edit
Hi,
I am tagging this article for lack of neutrality since article seems to avoid (adequate) depiction of opinions of some well meaning progressive Muslim and ex-Muslims against the motion and against use of word Islamophobia.