From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
|
 B |
This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Mid |
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
 |
This is not a forum for general discussion of Islamophobia. Any such messages will be deleted 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. |
 |
This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
| Older deletion discussions: |
- Keep, 1 April 2006, see discussion.
- Keep, 17 Jun 2005, see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamopho
bia|discussion]].
|
|
 |
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information. |
Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
|
[edit] Alleged....
Calling something Islamophobic is generally an opinion. Wikipedia should not be saying X was an instance of Islamophobia. If we are going to list examples, they have to be examples of notable allegations. We don't say it's true or false that any case really was Islamophobia. That's promoting a POV.Noloop (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think saying something is islamophobic is necessarily a POV. If There are even those who say they themselves are islamophobic.
Just adding "allegedly" gives the implies doubt (see http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alleged) which gives off the idea that it's false. The word was used way too much in the article. This is especially true when there's already something like "aimed at combating Islamophobia", the "aimed" already means it might not work and depends on there actually being Islamophobia. Munci (talk) 11:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
-
- Adding "alleged" is necessary, otherwise Wikipedia is calling the things Islamophobic. The 1st meanning of the definition is "asserted but not proved." That's what we want to say. The fact that people might self-identify as Islamophobic doesn't matter. People sometimes self-identify as "bitch," that doesn't mean Wikipedia goes around calling people bitches.
- Regardless of whether the word was "used way too much in this article" that was the consensus version, and you need to get consensus to change it. Claiming that the only cases of "alleged" you removed were the three I added, as you did in the edit commentaries, is a distortion. Noloop (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- But it could give the impression of the second meaning. Because of this, I feel "state" may fit in better. And how are you supposed to prove something's islamophobic? If you're going to used "alleged" with the implication of "asserted but not proved", then there needs to be a way to prove something is islamophobic. I think the comparison to "bitch" doesn't work well since "bitch", unless referring to a female dog, is just an insult. It may have nuances but is not a word ever used in academic literature, in contrast to islamophobic.
-
-
- I am sorry if you felt that I implied that the only "alleged"s I was removing were ones you added. I thought saying "new" like I did in "You're the one adding the new "alleged"s" was clear enough. Adding the new "alleged"s require consensus just as much as taking away the old ones does.
-
-
- Oops forgot to finish what I was saying above. If...something fits the description at the top of the article, why not call it islamophobic? Munci (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Agree with you, taking away the old "alleged"s requires consensus, so why are you taking them away without consensus?
- Would you accept "perceived" rather than "alleged?" That might better suggest that Wikipedia is not, itself, saying these things are Isalmophobia, but also not casting doubt on the belief. Noloop (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know. I think we should wait for a third party editor or more than one to come. In the meantime, there are areas of wikipedia we can be editing and other things to do outside of wikipedia. Munci (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi all, if a source is referring to something as Islamophobic then one should consider the source first. In some cases it might be appropriate to refer to some occasion or event as Islamophobic as this is what the reliable texts unanimously refer to it as. In other cases it might be more appropriate to employ attribution if used in accusatory fashion. For example, some acts/views/figures are known to be antisemitic, without need for words like perceived/alleged or attribution. I think having a list of Islamophobic views/acts itself is poor style, and if we could turn it into some sort of concise prose then it would read much better. ITAQALLAH 22:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with Itaqallah: if sources are widely in agreement that something was an Islamophobic act, then we can say it was. As for prosifying the list, yes, a good idea, but a pretty hard job! IronDuke 22:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Why is Islamofascism a "controversial neologism" but Islamophobia is just a "neologism"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.145.185 (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] The Massive Warning display of Warning Templates
....needs to be exaplained. Where are the particular problems, what solutions do you propose? Noloop (talk) 00:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
There shouldn't be any mention of Islamophobia in India. I'm not turning a blind eye to the communal clashesthat have scarred the history of India over the years, but all of them have been politivally motivated. INDIAN HINDUS ARE NOT SCARED OF MUSLIMS the way Americans o some racist Brits are, for heaven's sake, we've been living together ever since Islam was born. The underrepresentation of Muslims in parliament, the police force, the IAS etc. is to do with other sociological factors, primarily poverty, not with ISLAMOPHOBIA. The fact is that while everyone in India is equal in the eyes of the law, it is next to impossible to convict a rich guy because all the evidence and the witnesses mysteriously disappear. This also accounts for the overrepresentation of Muslims in prisons, which incidentally is next to nothing compared to the overrepresenation of blacks in US prisons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.7.88 (talk) 07:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- You have a good point here. Being underrepresented in Parliament or Jobs itself is not a reason to accuse Islamophobia. Also communal violence in India or subcontinent is not always Islamophobic. There are complex historical, social and political factors involved. Nevertheless, in recent years, Islamophobia could have been a factor or excuse for many of these discriminations and violences, such as Muslim Bollywood stars facing difficulty in finding houses or apartments in Mumbai or Bangladeshi Muslims being specifically targeted. Normally if Jews in Europe are discriminated in jobs or politics, these acts are called antiSemitic if it was evident that a particular individual or group was targeted becuase of his race. The same criteria could be applied here.
- Nevertheless, general backwardness of Muslims in India has not much to do with Islamophobia and we should remove claims put in such a way IMO. Only more specific acts which can be supported by sources may be included - eg: Sachar report writes about Muslims in India facing problems in getting loans from the banks for no other reason than their religion. Zencv Lets discuss 08:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The 'Islamophobic acts' section is fully of opinions not acts, hence why I culled them. As the 'Views' section covers all mainstream viewpoints they need not be moved there.
I'll wait a bit before reverting to get other views.
Rsloch (talk) 10:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- Could you give some specific examples? Acts section contains desecration of cemetary, harrassment in subways, airports etc. They are indeed acts and not "opinions". Zencv Whisper 11:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- The list contains clear Iphobic attacks as you suggest but also events simply because someone has claimed they were Iphobic. Take the racist 2005 Cronulla riots as an example, which is classed as Iphobic because of the opinion of two writers. Also do thinks like Salman Rushdie's knighthood, or Wikipedia's inclusion of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons really become Iphobic because the Iranian Government say so?
Rsloch (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Alleged events such as 2005 Cronulla riots or Rushdie knighthood are formulated as "XYZ alleged that incident ABC was islamophobic". So these sentences already reflect that they are opinion. If you think that having them under "Acts" is problematic, we should think of moving to another section or starting another section. I am not in favour of removing them as these incidents(even if they are allegations) are notable in this article's context. Also I am not amused that you removed Shahrukh Khan's airport incident in USA. The source clearly says that his Muslim name got him into trouble, so it would be possible to include it(among others). Few Islamophobes(bar few Dutch politicians) would openly admit that they are engaging in IPhobic acts when they actually discriminate or instill hatred, so just like many other forms of discrimination, what we are left with is allegations and we have to note these incidents while whenever possible making it clear that it is an allegation. A good parallel would be anti-Semitism related articles in WP like Antisemitic incidents during the Gaza War. Many of these "incidents" are sourced to ADL website(without even hinting that they are allegations in the article). Cheers Zencv Whisper 23:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- There has to be a standard which events have to reach to warrant inclusion anywhere in the article. Some of the claims (eg Rushdie or religious symbols in French schools) clearly aren't Iphobic and should go. Others (eg Khan) are based on an opinion rather than evidence and inclusion should be based on the credibility of that opinion. On that basis I will remove all of the first category, plus the item about the 2005 Cronulla riots which were racist. I favour removing anything based on the Iranian government, or 'protesters', and polling which by its very nature is opinion.
- Let's not hide real prejudice behind propaganda and silliness.
Rsloch (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
