Talk:Islamophobia

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

This article survived three votes for deletion. An archived record of these debates can be found here, here, and here.

This article is biased

Why the use of the word 'alledged' before examples of islamophobia. Are you trying to suggest that the claims are false? If you were Muslim you would know that islamophobia exists. I think you should remove alledged it doesn't happen on other articles about Racism.

Removed Ziauddin Sardar quotes from this section his article is an editorial not a statement of fact. Only relevant info might be political parties on the far right that are islamaphobic. If these parties are not insignificant and there views are relevant to the article then surely there is some primary source material out there eg quotes from party leaders etc. We shouldn't rely on it being fact because some guy wrote it in his opinion piece.Ferdie33 13:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Country-specific polls and surveys - Australia

I have removed Australia from this section for the following reasons:

• Sunday Herald Sun survey had a very small data sample (580) no details on the survey are supplied at all eg specific questions etc. The current reference to the survey is comments in the Green Left Weekly publication which obviously form its name alone should convince that they are pushing a POV.
• I have located the UNSW survey here [[1]]. It is comprised of a sample of 1300 people. Whilst obviously a more worthy example than the previous survey I believe that more than one survey is required before attempting to push a POV that Australia suffers from Islamophobia
• Rest of the section deleted as POV stating why Australians would be justified in hating Muslims, not really related to "Polls and Surveys"

I believe that a survey/poll section on such a controversial topic is not a good thing unless there are multiple surveys that are reliable and can support each others findings. A survey can be twisted in many ways and a poorly planned one means little or nothing. I will make a note on the rest of the section once I have a chance to look at its references. Ferdie33 05:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Reports on Discrimination and Islamophobia in the EU

Reports from the EU:

• Muslims in the European Union: Discrimination and Islamophobia
• Perceptions of discrimination and Islamophobia

There's also a BBC News story on the reports. jaco♫plane 11:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The lead

A lead should be a brief desciption of the topic and summary of the overall article, not a place for matters of detail. I think we should look at cutting the lead down a bit - either eliminating detail that is repeated later or at least writing in a more summary form. Detail that is not currently repeated later could be shifted. I haven't worked on this article for awhile and am unsure whose toes I'd be treading on if I decided to be bold - so I'm raising the issue here for discussion before I do anything significant. Metamagician3000 14:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Country-specific polls and surveys

This section is filled with OR/POV assessments about what is somehow an "Islamophobic" opinion, and some the articles that is used as a ref doesn't even make any allegations about anything "Islamophobic". I already started taking out some of the worst examples, and during the Christmas holidays I plan to make an effort to clean up the whole thing. -- Karl Meier 16:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Good. There's a lot to be done. I've only fiddled around the edges so far. Metamagician3000 04:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I've now done some significant restructuring and cleanup. Hope I haven't broken any formatting. Metamagician3000 11:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hassan

I made some deletions in the "responses to criticism" as it was large section based on just one article by a rather non-notable person. Mr. Hassans opinions in this single article was given a huge amount of undue weight, and believe that something had to be done about this. I hope that this relevant section will be expanded again, this time with a more diverse range of notable opinions. -- Karl Meier 16:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

They certainly appear to be given massively undue weight at the moment. Metamagician3000 09:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. It seems that someone has restored all the stuff that I removed earlier. Anyway, I just changed it back to a more appropriate size. -- Karl Meier 15:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree with both of you here. (→Netscott) 16:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

New catagory

I am starting a new Catagory of people who are anti-Islamic. Please support this as the Jewish community have listed blatent antisemitic people.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 03:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Without commenting specifically on this category, there being a category of "blatant antisemitic people" doesn't justify this either way. Nysin 10:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Categories for Deletion: Category:Anti-Islam sentiment

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 27#Category:Anti-Islam sentiment. --70.51.229.211 15:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Effect on Arabs

I've deleted this entire section - almost every sentence needed a citation, and it had sat there for too long with nobody providing them. Jimbo has said again and again that we are to be ruthless in deleting uncited material, so the time for this material to go was well and truly up. Also, the section is POV. It assumes that there is such a thing as Islamophobia, when the general thrust of the article is to be neutral and report on both people who make such a claim and people who claim that it is a myth. The whole idea is controversial, as the lead says, so we must make sure that everything in the article reflects this. All claims about Islamophobia need to be attributed, rather than presented as the view of the encyclopedia. Metamagician3000 13:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Historical Information?

There is no historical information on Islamophobia here. What about Islamophobic views in the past? The Winston Churchill's quote:

“ How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog ”

[2]

is an example of historical anti-Islam feelings. Rumpelstiltskin223 09:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we add stuff from Ali Sina on this . He says that "Islam is "unflinchingly violent, extremist, reactionary, intolerant, anti-Western and misogynistic" and "as the disease of mankind, and the source of all these wars, terror attacks and human miseries".[18] His website features editorials that suggest "[Islam] Means Death"[19] and that the Judeo-Christian civilization must "destroy Islam".[20] He says that Muslims "have no pride, no self esteem, no dignity, no honor", and are thus "evil". He further says that Muslims are "bullies".[22]"Bless sins 15:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Be careful of original research, though - it's not up to us to conclude that these views are examples of something called "Islamophobia" whose existence is even doubted by some people. You need to find a notable secondary source that draws such conclusions. In the Churchill case, there's no doubt that there have long been anti-Islam feelings in Europe. For example, read Othello to get the flavour of how Islam was regarded in Europe in the 17th century. But my understanding is that "Islamophobia" is supposed to be a new phenomenon, different from historical forms of anti-Islam sentiment. If anyone has compared the two we could report on that: e.g. "Foo theorises that the modern phenomenon of Islamophobia has roots in the historical antagonism towards Islam that was pervasive in Europe from the eighth century, as a result of successive wars with Arabian and Turkish conquerors." Or whatever Foo may actually have said. Metamagician3000 01:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

...for which reason I am going to remove the tag. It is not at all obvious that we need a lot of background from deeper in history. Metamagician3000 03:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Fascistofobia

If irrational and baseless fear of Fascism and Fascists is Fascistophobia, then what is rational and based fear of Fascism? What a phobia becomes when the fears are well based? I belong in a sexual minority, Muslims declare and preach hate against sexual minorities and they hang gays in Iran and several other Islamic countries. My fears on Islam are well based - I take those death threats seriously. Is my disgust on Islam still a phobia? If I feel hate, disgust and fear on Fascists, am I a Fascistophobe?

Get off your soapbox. And what about Christianity with people like Fred Phelps? // Liftarn

Yes, the talk page is to discuss how to improve the article, not to vent our own feelings for or against Islam. The point of view of the anonymous user is already represented in the article, in so far as we describe the more notable denials that there is such a thing as Islamophobia, and the claims by some that it is applied to legitimate criticism of Islam. Metamagician3000 01:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

In response to the Fasciphobia comment. Is it a hate crime to promote an idealogy that more sexually restrictive than the lifestyle of homosexuals? Islam also preaches avoidance of pre-marital sex and modest dress. It is not wrong to preach self restraint (inclduing sexual restraint). If you happen to think so, perhaps it's because you assume Western individualism, promiscuity ,and decadence (as well as it may work for you) should be applied to every other person in the world. Isn't that essentially colonialism? Nlsanand 02:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes - it is wrong if "promoting" involves beheadings, stonings, and maiming of the victims - something very common in the Islamic ideology... 69.86.18.17 07:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)LordRahl

Once again, we are here to document claims about the controversial phenomenon of (alleged) Islamophobia, not to vent our feelings for or against Islam, or "Western decadence", or whatever else we may happen to dislike (or even support). Metamagician3000 05:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Citation tags in lead, and OR/POV issues in lead

The lead is meant to be a summary of the body of the article. I have trimmed it back so that that is all that it is. Please do not place citation tags on statements made in the lead that are elaborated in the body of the article with appropriate citations in the correct places.

In trimming back the lead, I removed some material that looks like original research or point of view claims. If this material can be substantiated, it is still too detailed for the lead, so could any new version of it please be incorporated in some appropriate place in the body of the article. Metamagician3000 12:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

So that the material that I deleted is not lost and can be worked on by the person who added it, I'll keep a copy here:

"This line of thinking holds that the term as been coined by liberal politicians to demonise and silence anyone who may voice a legitimate criticism of Islam. A construct of the term itself demonstrates a misuse of the greek root "phobia" which means fear. The accepted definition by those who use the term does not include the word "fear" in it. The term phobia has a negative connotation, implying a certain irrationality. This is possibly why those who developed and use the term Islamophobia would use it against people who are not particularly displaying any kind of "fear" of Islam."

In its current form this looks very much like someone's own research/opinion, so please don't add it back without doing work to substantiate and attribute it. Metamagician3000 12:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Section

This criticism section is ridiculously long. No other article on prejudice/discrimination contains anything like this at all. Is this an article on anti-Islam hate or an attempt to convince us it doesn't exist?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.149.122 (talk • contribs)

There are also numerous differences between Islamophobia and other prejudices. Other prejudices like antisemitism there is no doubt about the existance of. Islamophobia is a term often used to dismiss criticism, and many doubt the existance of discrimination against muslims; they consiter discrimination against muslims as dismissing criticism of islam. Criticism of islam is not discrimination against islam, and that needs to be clear. That is why the criticism section is as long as it is.--Sefringle 04:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone doubting the "existence of discrimination against Muslims" seriously has a screw loose in their head. Criticism of Islam is certainly not prejudice/hate/discrimination against Islam but there is a serious problem with a lot of what passes today under the umbrella of "criticism of Islam" -- namely, the strawman technique of pulling together the most extreme interpretations and practices and criticizing them as representative of a religion interpreted and practiced by 1.4 billion different people. --ChefGonzo 10:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

If you think saying "islam is a religion of terrorism" is racism, you are wrong. That is not racism, especially if you can defend that claim. And to say it is is dismissing criticism. That is not discrimination. Now blowing up mosques is discrimination, but having a negative view of islam is not discrimination.--Sefringle 22:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Blowing up mosques is hatred in the form of physical violence. Prejudice/hate/discrimination need not take the form of physical violence in order to be considered real or even exist. Is racism against blacks or anti-semitism against Jews, manifested in non-violent forms, not xenophobia? To pretend this kind of hate against Muslims doesn't exist is completely and utterly absurd. To say "Islam is a religion of terrorism" is a grossly exaggerated generalization and is a perfect example of the strawman technique of criticizing your preferred representation of Islam as representative of the whole. You can put together all sorts of "defenses" for that claim, but you are still working with an intellectually dishonest premise. No matter how it is practiced or what it means to 1.4 billion different people, your preferred representation of Islam is the "true" or "accurate" Islam. --ChefGonzo 00:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No, that is dismissing criticism. You are not comparing apples to apples. There are fundamental differences between Islamophobia and antisemitism. For one, nobody will say the phraise "Jews are trying to take over the world" is criticism of Judiasm. That is just racism. But to say "Islam is about terrorism" is criticism of Islam. It is a common topic of criticism of islam, and to say otherwise is dismissing criticism of islam. Same thing with distinguishing between ligitiment criticism of islam form illigitiment criticism of islam.--Sefringle 00:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not dismissing criticism. It is criticizing and scrutinizing the foundation of the "criticism" itself. I agree that saying "Jews are trying to take over the world" is anti-semitic -- the same way I also believe that saying "Muslims are trying to take over the world" is islamophobic. I am not the type of person who would point to extremist conservative elements in the West Bank building settlments in illegally occupied territories year after year, and interpretations of the Torah that argue that God promised Israel to the Jews, and point to the Jewish lobby groups in the United States and claim that all these groups are representative of Judaism's quest to manipulate the international community in their favor. At the same time, it is exactly this line of thinking I see being used when discussing Islam. IMHO, this a severe case of double standards. --ChefGonzo 02:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

We are not here to settle this issue. We are only here to report the issue - some people claim that there is something that they call I"slamophobia" and which is closely analogous to, or even a form of, racism. Other people claim that this is not true or is at least exaggerated, and that the first claim is used to suppress what the people in this second camp consider to be legitimate criticism of Islam. Those are the facts. We need to present and elaborate those facts neutrally. I am dismayed to be reading a debate about which of the two camps, or schools of thought, is correct. It is not our job to adjudicate that - or to use the article to try to push one school of thought over the other - but only to present the facts in a neutral way. Metamagician3000 10:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle's Reverts

Sefringle has reverted to an older version of this article with serious POV issues a second time. His reason follows: "oversimplification giving too much meaning to the authenticity of this topic."

Among these POV issues: 1) the labeling of suspect "criticism of Islam" as "legitimate criticism." "Criticism of Islam" is a neutral phrase whereas "legitimate criticism of Islam" deems the criticism "legitimate". To classify the suspect criticism as "legitimate" or "illegitimate" clearly demonstrates bias. 2) the claim is made in the intro that Islam is not a race or ethnicity. Anyone with a basic understanding of the theories of racialization and ethnicity knows this cannot be taken as a statement of fact. 3) plenty of weasel words are involved: non-Muslims are termed a sensationalized "infidels" when this is not even an Arabic term and Islamophobia is said to be "frequently" misused to attack "all" opponents of Islamic radicalism. "Frequently" is a matter or perspective -- "sometimes" is the neutral word. "All opponents of Islamic radicalism" are obviously not accused of being Islamophobes -- think US politicians like Dennis Kucinich and Jimmy Carter, or American Muslim scholars like Muqtedar Khan or Hamza Yusuf Hanson. 4) The YouGov poll on Muslim opinion bears little if any relevance to its section or the article and it is very much "spun" in its presentation in this article. 5) There is some OR included in the intro, claiming that "-phobia" in "Islamophobia" indicates "fear" rather than hatred or "loathing" -- this is opinion, not fact. The use of the suffix "-phobia" in "homophobia" clearly demonstrates a counter example, where "-phobia" is indicative of much more than just a "fear" of homosexuals or homosexuality. 6) In the case of at least one article, the concept of Islamophobia is not even referred to. This is OR. 7) Spelling and grammatical errors. I am reverting to the previous neutral version of this article. If Sefringle reverts again, I will be reporting this action to an administrator. --ChefGonzo 00:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Going through Recent changes I came upon this dispute. The above user has no grounds to "report" Sefringle's edits but I do find them to be of poor quality and redundant. KazakhPol 00:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Overlooking your massive oversimplification of the definition of racism, Islamophobia is frequently used to dismiss criticism of islam. Robert Spencer should not have been called an Islamophobe. He is just criticizing Islam, and to say otherwise is dismissing criticism, which is the goal of the concept. I can name numerous other critics who have been called an Islamophobe for criticizing Islam (virtual every single one). So yeah, the term is frequently used to dismiss criticism as racism. Frequently is not oversimplification, but instead of all opponents to Islamic radicalism, it would be better to say most opponents. Your mentioning of Hamza Yusuf is an example of ad populum. It is the same thing as mentioning the "anti-zionist jews" to say anti-zionism is not antisemitism, or those black Uncle Tom's to say the white supremacy is not racism. The previous version, while it has some errors, which I will fix, is much better and more accurate. Phobia does mean fear, and the source is here: Edmund J. Bourne, The Anxiety & Phobia Workbook, 4th ed, New Harbinger Publications, 2005, ISBN 1-57224-413-5. It is relevant because the word is islamophobia. I did not re-insurt it, because I can't find a good place to put it.--Sefringle 01:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You are engaging in conspiracy theories if you're alleging there is some "goal" behind the concept of Islamophobia. You may call Robert Spencer a "critic of Islam" but in my opinion, he is a thoroughgoing Islamophobe whose work is totally founded on the same strawman logic that attempts to fashion an intolerant and extreme version of Islam as representative of the whole -- this is a basic characteristic of xenophobic discourse that surfaces again and again and again. I do not understand your assertion that my mention of Hamza Yusuf Hanson is an example of ad populum. It doesn't make any sense. Al Sharpton, John Conyers, Keith Ellison, Russ Feingold, Wesley Clark, As'ad AbuKhalil, Akbar Ahmed, Ziauddin Sardar, Tariq Ali, Reza Aslan -- all critics of radical Islam that are not considered Islamophobes. So no, "frequently" and "all" or "frequently" and "most" won't cut it. Phobia in the context of "Islamophobia" does not exclusively signify "fear." That is a case of oversimplifying the term.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/phobiax?view=uk

Look specifically for the suffix definition (-phobia): dislike, intolerance, or aversion is included. This is why "homophobia" does not define just a "fear" of homosexuals but also a dislike, intolerance, and aversion. --ChefGonzo 02:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The key phrase is "in your opinion." You are clearly dismissing criticism if you dismiss his arguemnets as racist with nothing to back it up other than you don't like the way his conclusion sounds. All of the arguements that Robert Spencer is an islamophobe can be categroized as Ad hominem. The same can be said for arguements that other people are "islamophobes." Critics of islam most certianly are frequently labeled islamophobes. Go through all the people in Category:Critics of Islam. Almost all of them have been labeled Islamophobes. That is dismissing criticism on a fundamental level , and if most certianly occurs frequently.--Sefringle 02:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, the problem is not with criticism of Islamic radicalism, the problem is with criticism of Islamic radicalism passing itself off as "criticism of Islam" as a whole. One can criticize intolerant or hostile interpretations but when one fashions those versions of Islam as representative of the totality of Islam, they are being intellectually dishonest, working with a massive generalization (Reza Aslan recently pointed this out to Sam Harris in the Reason vs Religion debate on CSPAN). I don't know how many times I need to repeat that in order for it to be understood. People like Spencer have practiced this strawman approach to a fine art -- and no, that is not an ad hominem attack. It is a criticism of the very framework he uses to launch his own criticisms (in the same manner Said criticized Lewis and the Orientalists). The difference between critics of Islamic radicalism like Spencer on the one hand, and Juan Cole or Louay or Omid Safi or Carl Ernst on the other, is that they present a nuanced picture of Islam, reflective of its dynamism and diversity in belief and practice.--ChefGonzo 02:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

First, it is Ad hominem, but more importantly, I think the new version the administrators instilled solves our issue here (for now).--Sefringle 03:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[un-indent]In looking at what has happened to this lately, I hardly know where to start, but the most obvious thing that leaps out at me is that the lead has vastly deteriorated in quality from how it was a week ago. The lead is not a place to offer juicy highlights of the article. It should be a three-para summary of the whole thing. A good lead will need very few citations - ideally none at all - because the citations to the claims summarised will be in the body of the article. Ideally, the lead will have nothing extra, since it merely summarises the article as a whole.

I am disappointed because I had put in a lot of work to get the lead in good shape, and that part of my work has been lost. I can't see any discussion of an intention to do this on the talk page. The current lead is full of material that is not of a summary character, but refers to the detail of particular incidents.

Also, there is now a lot of material that is far, far disproportionate. Devoting huge amounts of the article to explicating the detailed claims of a non-notable individual is not appropriate.

There also seems to have been some edit warring going on. There's nothing much I can do about that, since I'm too involved with the article, but would everyone please work towards a good, neutral article that we can be proud of. Metamagician3000 10:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears that Sefringle has an axe to grind, and prefers biased language to neutral language. I would be more appropriate to provide well-sourced criticism of the topic, than to engage in such crude POV-pushing. --Tsunami Butler 07:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Crude POV pushing? Changing alleged to percieved and labeled to consitered is definently POV pushing. Alleged and labeled do not take a stance, while percieved and consitered are taking the stance that it is true.--Sefringle 02:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The above comment by Tsunami Butler is nothing but a rude personal attack. I suggest that we just ignore that kind of trollish comments by Mr. Tsunami Butler. -- Karl Meier 22:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

My recent edits

I have made a few rather major edits to this article recently, and as they have been questioned and reverted by some editors, I'll try to explain why I made them.

1. In the intro section I added that the articles subject was controversial: "A controversial neologism". I did that, because the fact that a large number of notable persons that has criticized the concept and the use of the concept, has made it a plain fact that it is controversial. I believe that the article should reflect that reality right from the beginning, in order to be neutral.

2. I removed some of the material from the "responses to the criticism" section. I have tried to explain why in one of the above sections here: Talk:Islamophobia#Hassan

3. I removed and merged some of the material from the "Country-specific polls and surveys" section. The reason I did that, was as I mentioned in my edit summaries, that the material there was almost nothing but original research. What was presented was mostly surveys that mentioned various opinions held by a percentage of those that participated in them. There was almost no mentioning or any allegations of "Islamophobia", and as such I can't see it as but original research, that we imply that these opinions are somehow "Islamophobic", by including them in our article on the subject. -- Karl Meier 23:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It isn't particularly controversial. It's used by the United Nations, European Union, and British government, and as such has entered the mainstream. You also removed a lot of material, which is why I reverted you, including material from the California University academic, which is carefully sourced, and which is an intelligent argument, exactly the kind of thing our articles should include, whether we personally agree with it or not. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• "isn't particularly controversial" ? For example, Islamofascism is a term that's entered the mainstream, and even used by the President of the United States of America. It is more than fair to call it "controversial" and its Wikipedia entry says so in the first sentence. However, to remove the word from the Islamofascism entry would be censorship of reality. The same applies here. Islamophobic is a term obviously invented to stifle legitimate criticism of Islam. A person with a REAL phobia experiences extreme anxiety and fear when dealing whatever it is they are phobic with. Can you cite one example of any of these people labeled as "islamophobes" who has some kind of panic attack when the topic turns to Islam? No. The term is obviously controversial, and on the same token should remain in this article as well.ProtectWomen 07:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Slim Virgin, myself and User:Metamagician3000 have agreed with Karl Meier that there was a bit on an undue weight issue with Hassan's section. You're of the opinion that is a wrong view? (→Netscott) 00:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll take another look at it, because it's a while since I read it. I liked it because it's a solid argument (writing from memory), whereas the rest of the article is really just people saying "it's real!" "no, it isn't!" I don't mean this is the fault of the editors here, by the way, just the state of the debate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've re-read it. I don't see how the undue weight provision applies here, as this is almost certainly representative of responses to the criticism generally; in fact, my guess is that this is the majority position, given that the acceptance of the concept of Islamophobia appears to be the majority position now. It's also, as I said, intelligent, and actually an argument, rather than a series of assertions, which is what we should be looking to include. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If arguments presented by Mr. Hassan in that article should take around eighty percent of the of space in the "Responses to criticism" section, then I believe that it is not enough that we might think that his opinions is interesting or intelligent. And it's not enough that he is a academic at the University of California either. I believe that we need to make a case that he and the opinions that he expressed in that article is somehow sufficiently notable enough to be given that amount of weight in that section. We need evidence that the opinions that he expressed in the article has been quoted and used and commented on by other notable sources. If such material doesn't exist, then I believe we should give less weight to the opinions he expressed i that specific article, and expand the article with a more diverse range of other notable opinions. As for the concept being controversial, it is perhaps true that it has to some extend entered the "mainstream" and that the majority of people that has used it has not criticized it, but that doesn't make it "not controversial". A concept is controversial if a substantial amount of notable voices has criticized it, and that is the case with "Islamophobia" as it is obvious from the "criticism" section. Another issue is that I don't understand why the "surveys" section keep getting restored. I removed what was clearly nothing but original research, and moved what was useful to more appropriate sections. -- Karl Meier 10:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Karl, add more responses to the criticism if you want more voices, rather than shortening Hasan.

Regarding the "controversial" concept: in what sense is it controversial? Karl and whoever else wants to add this: are you arguing there is no prejudice against Muslims, and that it's "controversial" to say there is?

The concept may be applied controversially, but that doesn't make it controversial in and of itself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't solve the problem that his opinions is given a huge amount of undue weight. Other opinions could of course improve that section, but for now I'll leave that to others, and focus on the problems with Hassan. Did you have any evidence that justify that he and the opinions that he expressed in that article, should given the amount of weight that your version of the article does?

I am arguing that the concept of Islamophobia and the way it is being used, is controversial. The "criticism" section has a lot of evidence that makes it clear to me, that the concept has been criticized by many notable voices in the public debate. That I believe makes it a reality that it is controversial.

No. But the notable criticism of the concept itself does. -- Karl Meier 21:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that you don't like Hasan's arguments because they're strong and intelligent. The undue weight provision of NPOV doesn't apply to individuals in the way you're trying to use it. Please read the policy to see what it means. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make such guesses. We are not here to discuss personal opinions, and bad faith accusations only poisons the atmosphere. Fact is that I have seen nothing in Wikipedias policies that indicate that undue weight doesn't apply to the opinions of individuals. Could you please quote from these policies? Anyway, if you could do as I requested and provide some notable references that has mentioned the opinions that Mr. Hassan expressed in the article, then I won't mind that more weight is given to them in that specific section. Frankly, as it is now, I can't even see any evidence that Mr. Hassan himself is in any way notable enough to be given much weight in this article. -- Karl Meier 14:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Surveys

Could people say why the survey section is original research? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, the material that I deleted from there didn't say anything about any "Islamophobia", but just mentioned various opinions of people that participated in some specific surveys. For us to include such material is to imply that these opinions is somehow "Islamophobic", and that is original research. -- Karl Meier 21:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I am OK with the survey section being there, however only sourced statistics should be mentioned, and they should use similar words to the origional source--Sefringle 02:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that it is also important that the statistics that we include, is relevant to the articles subject. I believe that it is not enough, that it is relevant according to our original research. -- Karl Meier 06:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

People don't have to use the word "Islamophobia," because this isn't an article about the use of the word, but about the concept. So long as the sources are clearly talking about that, it's WP:POINT to insist that the actual word must be used. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As long as there is no accusations or mentioning of so-called "Islamophobia", then how is it not original research for us to suggest that these surveys are somehow relevant to a discussion about the concept of "Islamophobia"? Why do you believe that these surveys should be included in our article? -- Karl Meier 14:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Anon edits

For the record: The anon that removed the slavery section was me. I forgot to log in again. -- Karl Meier 16:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

CAIR

It is inappropriate and biased to remove citations to CAIR, which is a significant, established organization. --Tsunami Butler 22:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

'Significant, established organization? Are you serious? Please tell me you aren't. Guess what, the "KKK" is a significant, established organization, and everyone here would be offended if theirthe Klu Klux Klan's opinion was being cited as scholarly encyclopedic fact in an article on "anglophobia" (for example).

Sorry, CAIR is a horribly POV biased organization and is not an acceptable source. CAIR gets the boot.ProtectWomen 10:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)'ProtectWomen 07:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

CAIR is horribly biased in your opinion, but it counts as a reliable source for Wikipedia. Please don't remove it again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

CAIR is an extremist organization, that has many very, very controversial members and opinions. There is no way that CAIR is a WP:RS -- Karl Meier 14:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

CAIR is a notable source worth quoting for their 'opinion' but their opinion should not be cited as an encyclopedic definition for "Islamophobia" as a primary source. Do you understand the difference? ProtectWomen 20:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Leading ethnic activist groups are often used to give authoratative statements about their community and the perceived discrimination against them. While I actually don't think that is fair, it is common practice. The NAACP and ADL are very prominent in defending their respective communities despite their controversial nature at times. Negating CAIR as being extremist is essentially labelling the muslim-american community majority as fringe and virtually not allowing any of their opinions on wiki because their organizations do not meet WP:RS. If this site only claimed to represent the white christian west, i may agree with Karl; but it does not, and hence some voice should be given to large diverse non violent organizations on wiki, even if we may not agree with them —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fermat1999 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

SlimVirgin Edit

The trail back to your user page shows you to be some kind of administrator, which is actually shocking, given your edits on this article. Your argument that "controversial" should be removed because prejudice against muslims is real is a bit embarrassing to watch you try and justify.

You'll notice that the title of this article isn't "Prejudice Against Muslims"; it is "Islamophobia". This word, ISLAMOPHOBIA is a derogatory term applied liberally against anyone who presents legitimate criticism of Islam, in order to stifle debate and hide the problems associated with Islam. Hence, the phrase accurately describes the word "Islamophobia" as a "controversial neologism".ProtectWomen 08:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This article isn't about the term Islamophobia. It's about the concept, which is simply one of prejudice against Muslims, as the article states. The concept is used formally by the United Nations and the European Union, as well as by innumerable governments and anti-racist organizations, so that it's controversial in and of itself is a tiny-minority opinion. Its application is controversial, in that some commentators believe it's applied too widely and used to stifle criticism, but that's a separate point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Those that has criticized the concept itself is not a tiny, insignificant minority. Here is just a few of the people that has criticized it and called a "wretched concept" in this case in connection with the publication of the "MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism": Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Chahla Chafiq, Caroline Fourest, Bernard-Henri Levy, Irshad Manji, Mehdi Mozaffari, Maryam Namazie, Taslima Nasreen, Salman Rushdie, Antoine Sfeir, Philippe Val, Ibn Warraq.

The fact that political organizations such as the United Nations, which is often dominated by Islamic memberstates, has used it, doesn't make the concept uncontroversial. It would be uncontroversial if there haven't been much notable criticism of it, but as it is obvious from the "criticism" section, that is not the case. -- Karl Meier 14:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Your arguments are disturbingly reminiscent of the arguments used to justify Anti-Semitism back in the 1930s. --Tsunami Butler 15:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Mind WP:NPA. -- Karl Meier 15:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Karl, it's not only UN committees that use the term, but the Secretary-General himself. It's used by the British government, and by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. That shows that the term and the acceptance of the phenomenon have moved into the mainstream. Just because a handful of people sign a petition, that doesn't make the concept "controversial." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If the concept is controversial, then we describe the controversy around the concept, presenting fairly all significant viewpoints relevant to the controversy, without siding with any side. That is what NPOV editing is all about. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: I have never disputed the fact that word has been used by a significant number of important individuals and organizations. That among other things makes the articles subject notable and worth having an article about, but I don't see how that should make it uncontroversial? The concept of "Islamophobia" has notable individuals and organizations supporting and using it, and it has important and notable individuals criticizing and rejecting it. What I mentioned above is not just "a handful of people that has signed a petition". It is a long list of well known and notable individuals that has rejected the concept and criticized it as what they call a "wretched concept." And they are not the only important and influential individuals that has rejected the concept. The "criticism" section list a lot of notable individuals that has also criticized the concept. Frankly, I can't see it as anything but a plain fact that it has received more than enough notable criticism to be controversial. -- Karl Meier 17:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Jossi: I absolutely agree. -- Karl Meier 17:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Karl, I've left the word "controversial" in just so I'm not reverting wholescale, but I don't agree that it should be stated in the intro as though it's a fact. As for the rest, you're removing perfectly valid, well-sourced material. For example, it's directly relevant that Kofi Annan made that statement, and it's a very good way to introduce the article. I accept that the UN is made up of sometimes controversial committees, and it's hard to regard them as reliable sources, but none of those concerns apply to the Secretary-General, who is normally very careful about how he expresses himself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I must say that I am very pleased that you are leaving the word "controversial". Notable and substantial has been raised against the concept, and reading the "criticism" section, I can't see that as anything but a fact. Another issue is that I believe that there is still some problems left, and one of them is the issues regarding the original research material in the "surveys" section. The material I have deleted from there doesn't say anything about any "Islamophobia", and I can't see why it should be relevant to our article? Why do you believe it is relevant and why should it be included? What sources allege that these views that we present are somehow Islamophobic? If we ourselves are the only source that does that, then I can't see it as anything but a clear example of original research. You obviously believe otherwise, but I don't understand why? Regarding the Annan quote, I moved it to a more appropriate section, because I believe we should be careful about giving so much weight to a strong and controversial opinion in that specific section, and because my understanding is that the lead section should only contain a very concise summary of the material that is already used elsewhere in the article. Starting the article with an angry and highly opinionated and politicized quote that makes allegations about "widespread bigotry", also doesn't seems to be the most neutral and encyclopedic way to start an article about a controversial issue. I wouldn't expect that from a serious Encyclopedia, and I believe that our tone should be somehow more disinterested. -- Karl Meier 18:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is obviously much better off with a level-headed thinker such as Karl Meier. He is dead right- the survey section, while interesting, says absolutely nothing about "Islamophobia" and bears no relevance to this article. The word "Islamophobe" is itself a derogatory epithet and is not the same thing as a person who criticizes Islam (although many people fantasize that they are one and the same). That seems to be the source of the controversy. Some people believe that Islam should not be criticized at all- thus this word is used to lump everyone who criticizes Islam (as a religion) in with a very small number of people who are prejudiced against Muslims or perhaps racist. If someone says that Islam (a religion, not a race) is oppressive to women, the Runnymede trust would call that person an "Islamophobe"... But we can say "Christianity is oppressive to gays" and nobody jumps up to call that person a "Christianophobe". This kind of backwards thinking is quite sad.

Islamophobia is the new Scarlet Letter, but with a twist- the critic of Islam has not even done anything wrong. That is why Islamophobia is a wretched concept. ProtectWomen 20:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Your implication that others in this discussion are not "level-headed" is not helpful. JACOPLANE • 2007-03-5 21:42

At anytime, anywhere, anyplace on this earth, that a compliment is being paid, it is at the expense of insulting someone else. If I say to you, "you have a beautiful smile" this is only possible because someone somewhere has a horrible smile to serve as a reference point. Otherwise every single person in existence would have a precisely equal "neutral" smile, neither beautiful, nor offensive.

If I pay someone in this discussion page a compliment, and another party feels excluded- or for that matter, feels that the compliment is paid at their expense-- I shall have nothing to feel bad about. We all make choices, we all have our place in the universe (which thrives on dualities; the Chinese call it Yin and Yang). Some people stand on the side of reason and logic. We know this to be true because there are others who side with illogical emotions and desire to see reality not as it is, but as they would like it to be. Otherwise, Jacoplane, I appreciate your concern in the matter. ProtectWomen 07:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Latest edit by SlimVirgin

First I want to say that I am pretty disappointed to see that SlimVirgin has now rejected the compromise after a week with a stable article, and has started reverting again. The issues that I and other editors has raised above regarding original research material and the undue weight given to the opinions of a relatively unknown commentator, still needs to be addressed. -- Karl Meier 11:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I must also say that I feel that a revert a week after the last major edit to the article, having only the edit summary "no way" as an explanation is not the best way to restart a debate. -- Karl Meier 11:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Page protected

Now that the page is protected, we have a chance to get this ironed out. Karl, I conceded "controversial" to you. I'm prepared to concede the country-wide polls. Does anyone else have a view on that?

I think we should keep Kofi Annan in the lead, and keep the section from Hasan for the reasons I've argued above. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with Karl and other editors that unless polls and other sources are specifically discussing "Islamophobia" it is a bit original researchish to be assigning the term to such things. (→Netscott) 13:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As before I am willing to accept all of Hassan, even though I still believe that his opinions is given more weight than what is reasonable. I can also accept including Annan in the intro section, but to address the problems that I have mentioned above, I believe that we should edit it a bit so that the tone of the intro section remain what it should be: Neutral, encyclopedic and disinterested. -- Karl Meier 14:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As a compromise, I would accept a lead section that look like this:

Islamophobia is a controversial neologism defined as a prejudice against or demonization of Muslims. The term dates back to the late 1980s or early 90s, although its use has increased since the September 11, 2001 attacks.

The British Runnymede Trust described Islamophobia in 1997 as the view that Islam has no values in common with other cultures; is inferior to the West; is a violent political ideology rather than a religion; that its criticisms of the West have no substance; and that discriminatory practices against Muslims are justified.

British writer and academic Kenan Malik has criticized the concept, calling it a "myth." Malik argues that it confuses discrimination against Muslims with criticism of Islam, and is used to silence critics of the religion, including Muslims who want to reform it. The novelist Salman Rushdie was among the signatories to a statement in March 2006 calling Islamophobia a "wretched concept that confuses criticism of Islam as a religion and stigmatisation of those who believe in it."

The term has been used by a number of individuals and organisations, including Kofi Annan, who voiced his opinion on a UN conference in 2004: "[W]hen the world is compelled to coin a new term to take account of increasingly widespread bigotry, that is a sad and troubling development. Such is the case with Islamophobia." -- Karl Meier 14:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason I like Kofi Annan right up front is, first, that he's an authoritative source, and secondly, because we call it a neologism, and then we have a source saying why it was coined. So in terms of good narrative flow, it's a good quote for the start of the lead. However, I'd be willing to go along with Karl's suggested compromise lead.

I'm also willing to see country profiles removed in the hope we can keep Hasan. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Great then. With no remaining issues, I guess we then have a compromise. I will request that the article is unprotected. -- Karl Meier 16:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

While I personally think that Islamaphobia is used as a way to stifle debate in some circumstances (with limited to great success in different countries), the term itself is not controversial. At least, not anymore controversial than the term anti-semitism (which has come to mean dislike of jews). Islamophobia is simply a reference to dislike of muslims. Simple. The term is not controversial for it's existance (yes karl, there are people out there that dislike muslims; reading your previous edits I suspect you may be one yourself). The use of islamophobia as an epithet to stifle political debate is very real, but that concept is an article in and of itself. Similarly to how the accusation of anti-semitism to stifle debate in some circles may be controversial, but the term itself is not as the hatred of jews is a real phenomenom.

Fermat1999 16:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

My or your personal opinions is not the subject of our discussion here, and the fact that there has been raised a lot of notable criticism of the concept itself (see the "criticism" section) makes it a fact that it is indeed controversial. -- Karl Meier 00:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The Delete Discussion Outcome

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but a quick count was 12 Delete, 5 Delete/Rename, 2 Keep/Rename and 7 Keep. It seems a consensus was reached, and that was (depending on how you count it) 17 delete, 7 rename, and 9 keep. Hard to tell with all the discussion that had no votes but it looks like this should be deleted 17 or renamed 16 (if we count the keeps as renames) Or 24 delete/rename and 16 keep/remain.  ??? Just wanted to mention it.

To chime in here, I'm at a loss to explain how somebody can have a phobia about a religion or political or etc system. Cathli-phobia? Democra-phobia? Seems a rather odd word. It seems to be an ad hominem pre-emptive strike. Are we saying all fear of a belief system or method of behavior is irrational? I'm sure plenty of folks were scared of Ghengis Kahn; Ghengis-Kahn-a-phobia? lol But it is being used, so should be "explained" here I suppose. Sln3412 19:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You are following the Etymological fallacy. The roots of a word does not result in it's actual meaning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy

Terms develop under bizarre circumstances. Anti-semitism seems like a bizarre way to describe anti-jewish sentiments because semites encompass alot more than jews. But it's a term that has developed with time and has become standard as a description of anti-jewish behaviour/sentiments. Ditto with the term Holocaust (a term developed post WWII and that took time to fully take hold). Similary "African-American" or "Asian-American" when those terms were first developed in the 1960s. Islamophobia, in the modern era, simply means disliking muslims...even if the word phobia is in it and the etymology does not make sense. The meaning of a word is not always the sum of it's parts.

I suspect that the term is being attacked because the legitimacy of anti-islamism is being denied by a few people. Analogy is not perfect, but it is somewhat similar to those that deny racism exists against blacks or whatever ethnic group who's concerns a person wants to belittle. I'm afraid that people like Karl simply want to impose their strong POV in this article for a word that has more or less become a standard term for discribing anti-islamism. Accepting the minority view of Karl's is similar to accepting white supremacists/nationalists view about the "alleged holocause" or "the controversial term anti-semitism". It is unacceptable.

Fermat1999 14:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Please mind Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy and remain civil. -- Karl Meier 16:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Kofi Annan in the lead

I do not agree that the Kofi Annan quote should be included in the lead. I think it adds very, very little to the article. Furthermore, Kofi Annan is not an expert on Islam (I don't even think he is a Muslim, though I could be wrong about that). Is Kofi Annan's views on Islamophobia any more notable than Ban Ki-moon's views or Boutros Boutros-Ghali's views on the subject? I propose the removal of the third sentence of the first pargaph of the article. --GHcool 20:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this view. His view is only notable in that he's led the U.N. It would be more logical if a scholarly source on the subject was quoted in the lead. (→Netscott) 20:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Slimvirgin

While I am aware that she is known as very pro-israeli in the internet world, and I did disagree with her in a few other articles, I am pleasantly surprised to see her vigilantly defend the sourced material on this page against vandals. Kudos for that, and shame on a few people for so adamantly applying their biased POV by deleting well sourced material that is relatively benign (in that it more or less defines the concept).

Note: Please see the village pump policy discussion regarding the title of this article

here. Thanks. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 17:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)