From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Islam (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Religion / Interfaith (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Interfaith work group.
WikiProject Discrimination (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Proposed merge with Islamophobia in the media[edit]

Unwarranted WP:SPLIT with a very limited point of view and WP:RECENTISM. For balance, comprehensive secondary/tertiary sources should be used rather than isolated articles and opinion pieces. --Animalparty-- (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep Islamophobia is a very big topic especially in the preception and mind of Muslims. Moorrests (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge Above argument does not justify a second article's existence. The second article can comfortably be contained in this article. '''tAD''' (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge Unnecessary fork, not long enough either to be it's own article. Not really sure why "in the media" should be distinguished from islamophobia anywhere else Abcmaxx (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Merging a page on anti-Muslim xenophobia into a small redirect would not do justice to the importance of this subject. Islamophobia in the media is arguably responsible for much of our military interventionism in the middle east over the past few decades. The amount of media coverage this issue has received would mean that merging would amount to saying "xenophobia in newspapers is unimportant" or "lets obscure the fact that these broadcasters demonize Muslims". (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment No opinion on keeping or merging but it should be noted that the current version is VERY different from the version when the merge was proposed. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Recent Reversed Edits I Made[edit]

/Users/cadeemlalor/Desktop/Screen Shot 2015-02-27 at 8.48.08 PM.png

I don't know if the screenshot will be visible, but as part of an assignment, I attempted to add factually cited info to the wikipedia page. Less than two hours later, they were deleted. The citations were also formatted correctly, allowing them to be viewed in the citation section and with clickable links that could direct users directly to the newspapers I cited.

Does anyone have any idea why they would be deleted. The below ones are not in WIkipedia's format since I am just pasting them directly from a word document I was working on.

Ibrahim Hooper, the communications director at the Council on American-Islamic Relations attributes the spike in recent anti-Muslim attacks to the Charlie Hedbo attacks, as well as news coverage of "...'radical Islam' being on the news recently."(Daleida) It is likely that Hooper is referring to mainstream news coverage of ISIS. As journalist Julian Burnside states, "Of course Muslims are an easy target: Islamic State (ISIS) is doing a pretty bad PR job for Islam (Burnside).

Burnside, Julian. “The Islamophobia Stirred Up By Abbott and Bolt Is A Bigger Threat To Us Than Terrorism.” The Guardian. The Guardian., 25 February 2015. Web. 27 February 2015.

Daleida, Colin. “Hate Crimes and Hate Speech: Islamophobia’s Rise In The U.S.” Mashable. Mashable., 17 February 2015. Web. 27 February 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmlalor (talkcontribs) 18:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2, 2015

Requested move 21 March 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved, largely based on the current name being the common one. Number 57 16:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

IslamophobiaAnti-Islamic sentiment – As the opening text of the article presents: "Anti-Islamic sentiment or Islamophobia is a term for prejudice against, hatred towards, or fear of the religion of Islam, Muslims, or of ethnic groups perceived to be Muslim. This is prejudice and, in a straight forward way, should be studied, researched and tackled as such.

At essence the current title fundamentally fails WP:AT. The topic area is not a Phobia and, as far as the Venn diagram system of analysis is concerned, the topic of this form of prejudice certainly does not fall within the category of anxiety disorder. Sources are contain a great many topic relevant references to terms such as "against muslims", "against islamic", "anti-Islamic", "anti-Islam" which provide further justification for the move. Clearly issues related to presentation as Islamophobia can be presented in the article but I don't think we should place the cart before the horse.

The topic should be treated in the same way in Wikipedia as in any parallel condition of prejudice such as: Anti-Catholicism, Anti-Christian sentiment, Anti-Hinduism, Anti-Mormonism and other articles that use the same "Anti-..." format common to articles found in Category:Persecution and connected categories. Many other topic areas are currently catered for by the 209 uses in Wikipedia of the "Persecution of ..." article title format.

Also at issue is that "Islamophobia" is a neologism and this is shown in that the article is found both in Category:Words coined in the 1980s and Category:Political neologisms. See also WP:NEOLOGISM.

As mentioned in the article section Islamophobia#Criticism of term and use: Salman Rushdie criticized the coinage of the word 'Islamophobia' saying that it "was an addition to the vocabulary of Humpty Dumpty Newspeak. It took the language of analysis, reason and dispute, and stood it on its head". I see the point and don't think that this is the kind of content that benefits an encyclopaedia.

GregKaye 07:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose The term is widely used is RS, and that is what matters. That there are people that criticize the use of the term is something to be covered in the article.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 09:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment there is a wide range of content on the subject found in a scholar search on (Prejudice OR persecution) AND (Islam OR Islamic OR Muslims) but any word beginning "Islamo" only appeared on the results pages once each on the third and sixth pages. A more important issue is to describe the subject so that it can be appropriately assessed and tackled. GregKaye 10:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Seriously?[1][2][3]--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 10:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Certainly. We should present content and descriptions that help readers work through and understand the topic. We need accurate and descriptive content. GregKaye 20:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The term Islamophobia fails in the neutrality domain as well. It is a politically motivated neologism the use of which to describe Anti-Islamic sentiment is contentious. We certainly need an article that covers Anti-Islamic sentiment, and this article for the most part does that, hence it should be named accordingly. The neologism Islamophobia also obviously needs to be discussed in an article, including the debate about its use. The question should be whether it should be covered in a separate article Islamophobia, or just discussed in the article Anti-Islamic sentiment. I think discussing the use of the term in the same article would suffice. Since they have almost identical meaning, there is no point in creating a new article for an alternate name of the same concept. In any case, an article discussing the notion of Anti-Islamic sentiment under the title Islamophobia is in violation of WP:POVTITLE, when we have an equally recognizable neutral alternative. If the article Islamophobia is decided to exist in its own right, it should only describe the term itself and the debate around its use, not the Anti-Islamic sentiment in general.--Cfsenel (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – This is nonsense. Are we going to rename Homophobia? Mincing words over what is and isn't a phobia is unacceptable. This is the common term in RS, just as with Homophobia. The use of the "-phobia" suffix in this manner is a standard part of the English language. I would argue that the proposed term is more of a neologism than the present term, given the wide-range of use that the current title has by comparison. We don't rewrite English usage on Wikipedia. RGloucester 05:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
RGloucester There is certainly no mincing on my part over what a phobia. Why do you assert that this is nonsense? Oxford dictionaries define phobia as "An extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something". This does not fit in with a description of the discriminatory practices against any such religious group of people and, if anything, the mincing of words was done by the people who tried to shoehorn this topic area under the title "Islamophobia". Certain people that claim to be Muslims may make unwarranted attacks on Buddhists, Christians, Yazzidis, etc. and we rightly define it as prejudice. Other people make unwarranted attacks on Muslims and we define it as "phobia". This seriously is a nonsense mincing of words. Prejudice should be addressed and tacked as prejudice and hatred should be addressed and tackled as hatred. It is no good pretending that a thing is something that it's not. I quite agree that some content on the topic of Anti-Islamic sentiment may fit into the a subset section covered as Xenophobia but this is just one area of the wider topic covered within Category:Prejudice and discrimination but I do not think it acceptable to have one set of presentation in relation to groups such as Catholics, Christians, Hindus, and Mormons and another type of presentation in relation to Islam. GregKaye 07:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
This article is about an "aversion to Islam and associated things", and fits the OED definition perfectly. That's exactly what this article is about, and that's also what "Anti-Islamic sentiment" would mean if such a phrase were created. I'm sorry if you find the label inappropriate, but that's not something we're supposed to care about here. What matters is use in reliable sources, and the present term dominates the discourse. Your distinction between "phobia" and "prejudice" is mincing words, and is a failure to recognise what "Islamophobia" or "Homophobia" means. Neither of these classical compounds are referring to anxiety disorders, which demonstrates just how far off course you are. RGloucester 15:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
RGloucester on the contrary it is the very use of "Islamophobia" that minces words with its Psychobabble puffery. It is the straightforward description of "Anti-Islamic sentiment" that gets straight to the point and outlines the issues as they are. You are justifying an inequality in the treatment of religions in Wikipedia due to utterly unrelated treatment of terms related to sexuality.
True, there are a range of topics in Category:Sexual and gender prejudices in the format: Biphobia, Erotophobia, Homophobia, Lesbophobia and Transphobia and these topics may be seen to have understandable roots in the context of such issues as Sexual maturation disorder and anxieties and fears that may exist in a person's Psychosexual development. There is no natural rationale why a person should have fear in relation to a persons' religion and I don't think that topics of sexuality should be confused with topics on religion.
"Anti-Islamic sentiment" is a straightforward terminology that does not get sidetracked with the unjustified neologism, Psychobabble of "Islamophobia". It's not a phobia. An encyclopaedia should use plain English.
We have articles such as Anti-British sentiment and much of the content is in reaction to things that the people associated with Britain have done and are doing. We have articles such as Anti-Christian sentiment and rightly much of the content is in reaction to things that the people associated with Christianity have done and are doing. The same conditions should apply, without prejudice and bias, equally to all topics in the same category. The Wikipedia setup itself should be without discrimination and prejudice. Issues in similar categories should be handled equally. This is not the place for WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. GregKaye 10:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't the arguments presented be supported by sources?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 11:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
"Phobia" in plain English is neither "psychobabble" nor referring to an anxiety disorder. It has nothing directly to do with "fear" in the clinical sense. It has to do with "aversion". This is a classical compound, one of many similar compounds using the suffix "-phobia". These include xenophobia and homophobia, neither of which refer to "fear" or "anxiety" in the sense you are referring to, but to a strong aversion. In fact, the use of "-phobia" referring to anxiety disorders is more of a neologism than "-phobia" in the sense used here. There is no "systemic bias". We use the terms used in sources. RGloucester 17:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
RGloucester , this is not true in the case of Xenophobia. In the article we read: "Xenophobia is the unreasoned fear of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange." How does this apply to Anti-Islamic prejudice? How? How id the presentation of "Islamophobia" not psycho-babble. There were sensible presentations of words that could have given straightforward presentations of this side of an interaction problem and certain people created the unprecedented word for one religion as "Islamophobia". GregKaye 19:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
It isn't "unprecedented". The standard words for those are Anglophobia and Christophobia. They have merely veered from common usage, likely at the behest of editors such as yourself. Russophobia was also recently eliminated, sadly, replaced with a neologism that is both a nonsense and far from common usage. "Phobia" has nothing to do with psychology. I'm sorry that the English language is difficult. RGloucester 20:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The current title is a neologism and is narrower than what we would expect the scope to be. Red Slash 22:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Islamophobia is the common name for this. The article Islamophobia is not called Anti-Islamic sentiment. It may be a neologism, but it's notable and used enough to be COMMONNAME. The appeal to the root meaning of "phobia" is an etymological fallacy. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The current name is the common name as used in reliable sources. Mbcap (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the term is what is used inventing a new term for it would be counter-intuitive. The suggested term is also very bad since islamophobia is not necessarily directed at Islam, but against Muslims and people of Muslim background. If anything it would be renamed to something like Anti-Muslim racism to describe what it is. // Liftarn (talk) 11:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Prejudice/fear/hatred vs opposition in the context of "anti-Islamic sentiment"[edit]

I feel that this article takes many liberties in mixing up terminology with the subjective opinions of individual authors. While the term "Islamophobia" can have a specific origin and thus a specifically conceived meaning, the term "anti-Islamic" is a general construct and it would be difficult to trace its origin to any specific journal or column. It merely means "sentiment of opposition to Islam". It would be awfully single-minded to see that opposition to a specific religion has to be a derivation of fear, hatred or prejudice, as the article currently states in its introducting phrase. One of the linked references (145) even says, "We will not take the term [Islamophobic] for granted by assigning it only one meaning, such as anti-Islamic discourse."

There are examples of better wording in Wikipedia itself. Take, for example, the article Anti-Christian sentiment. It offers the definition, " opposition or objection to Christians, the Christian religion, or its practice". Would "anti-Islamic sentiment" be defined, it should follow a similar wording.

On an additional note, Anti-Islam leads to a disambiguation page, suggesting that an anti-Islamic sentiment can be viewed in a wider context than what is offered by this article. Therefore, there's a self-contradiction.

Due to these points, I edited the article to drop the starting reference to "anti-islamic sentiment". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzaeru (talkcontribs) 06:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted your WP:BOLD edit because it does seem to accurately reflect the article. There's lots of discussion of anti-Islam and anti-Muslim in the article. As the article currently stands, I feel that needs to be in the lead sentence. Happy to hear other opinions though. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: The term "anti-Islam" occurs thrice in the article. First occurrence is merely a quote about how the overarching terminology around the subject is ambigious; "academics are still debating the legitimacy of the term and questioning how it differs from other terms such as racism, anti-Islamism, anti-Muslimness, and anti-Semitism"
Second occurrence is likewise a somewhat ambigious quote; "Jocelyne Cesari, in her study of discrimination against Muslims in Europe,[145] finds that anti-Islamic sentiment is almost impossible to separate from other drivers of discrimination.". In the actual study, the author infact says that, "We will not take the term [Islamophobic] for granted by assigning it only one meaning, such as anti-Islamic discourse."
Third occurrence is using the term as an adjective for an organization; "Paul Jackson, in a critical study of the anti-Islamic English Defence League"
As seen, there is, in fact, no actual explanation for the origins or the use of the term "anti-Islam" itself. Instead, there's even a contradiction with some of the sources and the use of the terminology as the sources often do make a distinction between "Islamophobia" and "anti-Islamism".
Tzaeru (talk) 07:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I count: anti-Muslimist, antimuslimists, anti-Muslim (x15), anti-Arab (x2), anti-Islamism, anti-Muslimness (x2), anti-Islamic (x2). If anything, the lead should be changed to "anti-Muslim" instead of "anti-Islamic". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Anti-Islamic could mean merely opposition to the religion. Anti-Muslim otoh would mean opposition to people who practice Islam. TFD (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: I think that the article and its sources would be in better consistency if the term "anti-Islam" was changed to "anti-Muslim". It seems that the definition of "Islamophobia" in many of the references is closer to discriminating attitudes towards the practitioners and those who can be loosely linked (no matter how falsely and far-fetched) to the practitioners. To quote the article itself: "The concept of Islamophobia as formulated by Runnymede was also criticized by professor Fred Halliday on several levels. He writes that the target of hostility in the modern era is not Islam and its tenets as much as it is Muslims, suggesting that a more accurate term would be "Anti-Muslimism."" and "Diane Frost defines Islamophobia as anti-Muslim feeling and violence based on “race” and/or religion.[47] Islamophobia may also target people who have Muslim names, or have a look that is associated with Muslims.[48]"
To me, when considering what these words translate to, how the sources use and define them and how they would be viewed in the light of similar terms such as "anti-Christianity" and "anti-Judaism", it makes sense to rather use the term "anti-Muslim" than "anti-Islam" in a context that implies phobia/fear/hatred beyond just general opposition to a religion. It seems almost parallel to how "anti-Judaism" and "Antisemitism" are used and can be understood. Tzaeru (talk) 08:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the change of anti-Islamic to anti-Muslim. Thank you for making it! Sorry for delayed reply. I was mostly away from the computer over the past couple days. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)