Category talk:Islamic theologians

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Cat under Category:Theologians Category:Muslims Category:Islam Category:Islamic theology Category:Islamic writers Category:Islamic scholars. We have a great problem in Commons (and WPs as well) on "Islam" because of people trying to give more "visibility" to either (i) Their own religion or (ii) to what they conceive as "adverse" religion or culture or way of life. Therefore Commons is full of images of otherwise totally out -of-scope people because they have a beard or they cover the hair, in case of females. We call this uncensured neutral point of view. Only to clean Commons of too many unnecessary items (cats, files etc) about Islam we need a special admin. This "crowded situation" makes difficult to see the beautiful mosques (architecture), works of art etc that are kept behind these OoS people. E4024 (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@E4024: What are you proposing here? It is hard to see how a category for theologians obscures pictures of mosques. Do you want to strip the word 'Islam' from all categories, or what? As far as I was aware there is no negative connotation to being a Christian theologian, an Islamic theologian, or a theologian specializing in any other religion. Theology is a science and many theologians specialize in certain religions. It only makes sense to categorize professionals by their specialty. Josh (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Do you want to strip the word 'Islam' from all categories, or what?" This must be a joke. Theologians, scholars, muslim scholars of Islam etc. If you can find your way in the crowd congratulations. I get lost in those labyrinths. --E4024 (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it be a joke? You were not clear about the scope of your request. Talking about "Commons is full of images of otherwise totally out -of-scope people because they have a beard or they cover the hair" is clearly beyond just a concern about this one category, so what are we to make of it? Josh (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let me ask you a question also: Did you read the first sentence of my presentation? I will continue. --E4024 (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you listed the categories it was under, which I can also see by browsing to that category and looking at the categorization there. What's your point? Josh (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this cat under Category:Muslims? Are all Islamic theologians obliged to be Muslims? Why is it also under Category:Islam? Aren't Muslims already under Islam? Are all theologians also writers? If they are "Islamic scholars" they study Islam (IMHO) - what do the Islamic theologians study, "Islamic God"? Of course if people invent cats for Islamic doctors, pharmacists etc then I may appear to be the stupid who cannot realize the difference between scholar and... what was it, theologian? Do we have "Islamic academics" also? I know, I am the "lonely" one here as I am not a fan of no club. --E4024 (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be under Category:Muslims, as there is no reason why a non-Muslim person can't study Islamic theology. Sounds like this is a COM:OVERCAT situation, so no need for a CfD, just remove from Category:Muslims and Category:Islam. It is under Category:Islamic theology because that is the field of study, so that makes sense. Theologians are not automatically writers, so you can remove it from Category:Islamic writers, but again, no need for a big to-do about it, just be bold and do it (unless someone has objected). Theologians are under scholars, but the whole Category:Islamic scholars cat has its own CfD (thank you) so we can discuss that there. If there is controcersy about an edit, then yes do a CfD, but explain the controversy and your proposal so we know what you are bringing to the table. Just dumping categories in CfD for some kind of random talk is not going to get on-point discussion happening. Let us know what you want done and why and then we can talk about it and agree, disagree or whatever. Josh (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. en:Category:Theologians notes that "People should not be categorized as theologian if they only studied theology and if, by their clerical occupation, they should be in en:Category:Clergy." By this logic, a a non-Muslim person can be a "Religious studies scholar" or "Muslim studies scholar" but not a theologian. ie. to be a theologican, you need to be at least a practicing member of that religious community, if not some kind of ranking member. I don't know if that's workable here, but it's one possibility. If kept, Category:Islamic theologians (or Category:Muslim theologians), would go under both Category:Islamic scholars/Category:Scholars of Islam (religion of focus) and Category:Muslim scholars (practicing religion of scholar, relevant to their writing) - Themightyquill (talk) 10:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: I see, so a theologian by definition must be an adherant to the religion in question, if I understand correctly. This would simultaneously make it meaningful to distinguish the religion of the theologian as well as appropriate to use it as an adjective, so in that case, I would see it as okay to keep the category as is. I don't see a need to differentiate scholars in general by their religious adherance, but that is outside the scope of this CfD. Josh (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The parent cats have changed somewhat. It looks like our current thought is to leave this largely as-is? I support this (though I believe we should remove the category from Category:Writers of Islamic literature). – BMacZero (🗩) 18:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Issue resolved. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]