|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.|
|This is not a forum for general discussion about Islamophobia. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Islamophobia at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.|
|Please be calm and civil when you make comments or when you present evidence, and avoid personal attacks. Please be patient as we work toward resolution of the issues in a peaceful, respectful manner.|
|This page was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Islamophobia article.|
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17|
|Threads older than 3 months may be archived by.|
Sorry cursor jumps I needed to resection tonrespond
Doug I am disappointed by your atavck. In past you have been voice of reason.
FYI not dicussing topic discusing biased acceptance of ploy neologism
Just because it is obviously Zi have views is irrelevsnt,
Grumy reverters bias the page obscuring that thisisaPOV neologism as thousands of writers agree . Eg Hitchens.
Andy reverts without talk to present the ideological framng conocted b Runnymede etalasif scientificfact,
Thus millionsdotkemy pointseriously.
Please speak for yourselfthen
In particular I made a series of stepped edits today to allow reversion to at Least one minimally controversial level of modification. Andy the Grump just reverted all three steps without discussions. It is he you should be taking to task for stretching the presumption of WP:GoofFaith
Hence I reestablished the minimal change. Islmophobia is a coinage a portmanteau and neologism which many regard as a piece of orrdnance n ideological warfare. However that widely supported opinion is NOT what this edit conflict is about. At this point I seek only support for establishing that Islamophobia is a term....next step is to clean up the shoddy writing style which is redundant. Also. Whydoes ths man insist ondeleting the chracterization "discrimination"????Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)SignedDevilishlyhandsome no tilde via phone — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilishlyhandsome (talk • contribs) 23:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I viewed your comments about "Islamophilic ultraliberals" as an attack on editors who think this is a useful and meaningful phrase. I'm tempted to revert you because it is unnecessary to tell readers that the word is a word - term means a word or phrase used to describe a thing or to express a concept - but so what? Basically we are telling people that Islamophobia is a word - but I think our readers will all know that. The 'neologism' bit is a red herring and irrelevant (and seems to be being used to diss it). Of course it is pov in a sense - as is the word 'anti-Semite'. So what again? In fact your suggested changes were all redundent. " a term for prejudice discrimination antipathy" is not only poor English it is just adding other words meaning prejudice. "Chilling" is much better expressed in the second paragraph which says "Some commentators charge that the concept of "Islamophobia" has been used to dismiss any criticism of Islam, including its radical variants, by equating it with prejudice and racism."
- So how do you justify using 'term'? How does it add to the lead? Dougweller (talk) 08:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Achieving quality NPOV
Doug I appreciate your points. We can discuss each of them. What caused me to questionanother editor was that he racks up a huge edit count by taking five seconds to revert people``s painstaking, often time consuming work over spurious editcoments that have nobearing on the actual edit. Andy, the issue is nt *weasel words* nor is it sorcing.
One. Is it preferable or not that lede not include refs iff summarizing ponts made in text below and referenced?
Two Either way, what business has anyone deleting *discrimination* in a listing of Islphobic characteristics as *unsourced*when it is part of a list of near-synonyms which are themselves unsorced?
Three Islamophobia as a is attaining to legal status in some jursdictions As such it is normal dictin to list closey reated concpts. How is it hereby made a^weasel word^ just because you don't likeit
Four Is it claimed that discrimination v Muslims is not Islamophobia?
Five Why delete that as *unsourced weasel * but leave in the similar explanatory words which are equally unsourced. Six so I expect AGrmp to lay off the qwikand easy revrt button and devote his high experience to BUILDING ok? But yes we can discuss possible redundancy issu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilishlyhandsome (talk • contribs) 23:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, it's rarely a good idea to clutter up the lead with stuff that is referenced in the article. I don't see a need to use synonyms, if the words aren't actually the same that's another issue and needs to be discussed with specific examples. I'm not clear what you are getting at about weasel words so again need examples. As for four, again, specific examples. It's too difficult to have generalised discussions as that can lead to talking at cross purposes. Dougweller (talk) 09:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Should coinages, neologisms and controversial abstractions be identified as a different class of noun
Should coinages, neologisms and controversial abstractions be identified as a different class of noun
This is a substantive issue which goes back to nominalism vs realsm, Platonic Idea and Wittgenstein. While any noun under encyclopedic treatment is trivially a term visitors are entitled to being alerted when a term, though widely accepted in some academic circles is vehemently rejected, challenged or at best disused unused and ignored by a substantial plurality. In other words when it is itself notable as a term good bad or indifferent then the fact that it is a term for a questinable challenged or controversial abstraction which may or may not have a reality of its own, best NPOV practice would be to include that characterisation, that it is a term for X, rather than the bald assertion that it is X. Just as Van Goghs Starry Night is a painting of night sky not an astronomical proof of anything Peace a Love FolsDevilishlyhandsome (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Nope, I don't see this as necessary. The lead makes it clear that it is controversial, that's enough. Dougweller (talk) 09:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Islam is not an ethnic group.
Wikipedia must take a neutral and scientific stance. It is impossible to be racist to Muslims based on Islamophobia alone because Islam is not an ethnic group. There is no genetic code for Islam.
There is a political motive in falsely associating a religion with a racial group and Wikipedia should not associate with the racism of associating a race with a religion.
If Islamophobia is racist then Islam represents an ethnic group or a racial group. To associate a religion with an ethnic/racial group is racism, therefore to falsely assume that 'islamophobia is racism' is racism. Wikipedia should not include any blatant racism.
User:AndyTheGrump: For the purposes of ensuring that the article "makes it clear that some sources" consider Islamophobia racism, is this opening better?
Islamophobia is a term for prejudice against, hatred towards, or fear of Muslims. While the term is widely recognized and used, both the term and the underlying concept have been criticized.
Some scholars have defined it as a type of racism, but this has been contested. Some commentators charge that the concept of "Islamophobia" has been used to dismiss any criticism of Islam, including its radical variants, by equating it with prejudice and racism.
- It violates "neutrality" by providing parity between mainstream views of Islamophobia and opponents of the concept. While the term Islamophobia can be misused, the wording suggests that it is typically misused. The term racism can also be misused, but that does not make it a meaningless concept. TFD (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Even some of the harshest critics of Islam concede that certain forms of an anti-Islamic or a critical-Islamic position may turn into a discrimination of people just for 'appearing Muslim' or being from the middle east (i.e. doesn't automatically mean you are a Muslim.) - for example a man with a long beard and tanned skin, in reality could be an atheist etc. from Cuba but will be looked upon as an Islamic fundamentalist Arabian by appearance alone. As for whether that is racism is up to the debate already raging. Would you present that as well? I'm not sure if that would fix anything to mention the situational factor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- If someone thinks they can identify Muslims by physical appearance, it is a sign that they perceive Muslims as a race. TFD (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia's own page on the subject; "Some definitions of racism also include discriminatory behaviors and beliefs based on cultural, national, ethnic, caste, or religious stereotypes." There are other words I've heard being suggested such as "creedism" or "religious intolerance" to explain this difference between "racism" in the strict sense and what is perceived by Muslims by non-Muslims, but they still have not caught on and do not have the same weight of hate as the word racism. Why not include in the article this idea of racism not *strictly* being accurate in describing Islamophobia, but the other ways in which it is very similar? Patwinkle (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- What's important is to describe what Islamophobes think, as described in reliable sources. We cannot say Islam is not a race and therefore Islamophobia cannot be racism in the same may be cannot say there are no races of mankind and therefore no one can be a racist. Islamophobes not only condemn Islam as a religion, but see it as the religion held by a race or races of people and furthermore their race is the reason they adopted that religion. Or at least some of the sources used in the article say that. TFD (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- the idea of it being racially motivated to groups who may be perceived to be Muslim can be justified, if one looks at the murder of the Sikh (brown, turbaned, bearded) who was shot after 9/11, or the threats to a very integrated Hindu American who shares little but the colour of her skin with a stereotypical terrorist. It's the same as neo-Nazis may analyse somebody's facial features or political beliefs and conclude that they are "Jewish". '''tAD''' (talk) 12:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)