Talk:Islamophobia

Template:Troll warning

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Opinions of various people

Maybe someone should read a thing or two by experts and insert some of their definitions in the article. Peter Gottschalk and Gabriel Greenberg explain the difference between regular phobias and Islamophobia. It is that Islamophobia is a social anxiety, much like anti-semitism, and not a regular phobia which appears within an individual person. Or in his words: "Islamophobia is basically an anxiety about Muslims and Islam that exists on a social level. As opposed to some phobias which are individualistic and psychological, this one is more sociological." Gottschalk is an authority, he is a university professor who wrote books on the subject. Here is the interview he and Greenberg gave: [1]. Another interview: [2]. To the editors but especially those who are Jewish: Please don't try to intimidate and scare me by sending warnings and such things in future instead of arguments. This is an internet encyclopedia site for Christ sake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.250.170 (talk) 13:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Islamophobia is not a contorversial term unless you are an islamophobe. It is a real phenomenon that demonstrates itself in reality. People die every day as a result of islamophobic attacks. Muslim graveyards are destroyed or vandalised every day all over Europe. Women wearing headscarf are violently attacked and in certain occasions killed. Children, too. Ar you people going to argue that killing people who are Muslims is nothing more than criticism of Islam? Was Bosnian genocide a mere criticism of islam? And you rely on the opinions of biased commentators (from whatever side) instead of looking for some scientific results (from institutes all over the world and different UN bodies) which without doubt confirm that islamophobia does exist. For start, you could educate yourselves by reading the German entry for islamophobia. By keeping the "controversial" in the header you are only making fools of yourselves and embarrassing the whole western "civilisation". It is like saying Holocaust didn't happen.

by commonsense —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.250.170 (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I thinks the controverisal part is if it's acutally islamophobia or just phobia against other people. For example somone wearing muslim attire in a non-muslim country such as Great Britian is more likely to get abuse becuase they are different not becuase they are muslim. The reverse is also true, people who are not muslim often get harrased when they visit predominantly muslim countrys becuase they are different, one could say this is christianophobia when it's more likely that it's becuase a person is different not why they are different. Neosophist (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

As it was reasonably pointed out to me by User:Jayjg in Talk:Goy, encyclopedic articles must be based on writings of experts in the corresponding domain of expertise, not just by any important or respectable people. The Islamophobia article increasingly becomes as collection of opinions. I am not judging whether this is good or bad, but I would like to carefully consider the current and future text bearing in mind this important principle.

In particular, I would like to object the quotation of a Piers Benn in Islamophobia#Islamophobia-phobia section. He is a recognized expert mainly in medical ethics. Of course as a philosopher, he chooses to speak on multitudes of other high issues, but I question that his very occasional incursion into Islam-related subjects is encyclopedic enough. What is more, from his article I strongly suspect that he is quite ignorant in Islam (e.g. he writes "Islamic nations have barely been secularised", which (not going into detail here) is both historically wrong, lopsided, stereotyped, and discriminative statement.). Therefore may I suggest to delete it. Mukadderat 18:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree see my comments regarding Oliver Kamm above, writing occasional editorials in a newspaper doesn't make you an expert Bleh999 18:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Since Islamophobia is not an academic subject but a controversial political term, the notion of experts is moot here. This is an area of public debate rather than scholarship. Thus, notability, not expertise (in a non-existent field), is the only criterion for inclusion. Beit Or 18:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Please allow me to disagree. Politics is subject to science, called political science. Public debate is a subject of anotther science, sociology. We are writing an encyclopedic article, not a digest of public views. A sociologist, a politologist, or other expert has to decide which opinions are mainstream tendencies and which opinions are episodic fringe. We are not going to quote Christina Aguilera of Madonna here, do we? Despite the fact they are authority and even object of worship by many, with all due respect, they have no say in encyclopedia. In any topic the issue of undue weight is serious. If we not follow it, one may easily bury an opinion of a single world-reputable expert under thousands newspaper publications of occasional people. Mukadderat 18:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I am puzzled by your comment. What exactly do you suggest to leave in this article if only sociologists and political scientists are allowed to speak? Beit Or 19:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

What's puzzling? I am against easily stretchable academic standards. Everyone is entitled to speak on any topic, but within their area of expertise. A reporter may report the cases of "alleged islamophobia". An influential politician may be quoted in their use/abuse of the term. A psychiatrist may attest that there is no such thing as "clinical Islamophibia". A historian may say that the term "Islamophobia" is a 20th century invention, but the thing that is today defined as Islamophobia has already been discussed by Sulayman Pasha in 1712. And so on. Each speaks their wisdom in their domain. But to read in encyclopedia an average lector from Medical college(!) (Piers Benn) teching us that "Islamophobia-phobia can undermine critical scrutiny of Islam" is ridiculous. If a researcher may be frightened by "islamophobia", then his "critical scrutiny" has no value anyway, since he has no solid moral values to hold on in his research, and for this reason his research cannot be reliable (since we don't know what else he is afraid of). So this musing of this Benn is just a nonnotable feat of Islamophobia-phobia-phobia (sic). Mukadderat 05:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

At least only experts should have the right to define 'islamophobia' as a controversial term, otherwise that it is a controversial term cannot be reliably presented as a fact. That does not mean that other opinions should be removed from the article, but at the moment they are being used as references for the fact that it is a controversial term. Anyone writing from a blog qualifies as a reliable source by this standard. Bleh999 20:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"Anyone writing from a blog" - are you ironic or literal here? The term "controversial" does not mean that a bunch of ignoramuses don't know what the term in question means. My daughter doesn't understand maths. But this does not make maths "controversial. A controversy of encyclopedic level, i.e.,the one worth reporting is the one in encyclopedia are core disagreements by reputable or influential people or by large masses of people as reported by experts in opinions of masses. An anyone blogger is hardly a representative for encyclopedia; let him be happy with Hyde Park of blogosphere. Mukadderat 05:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the reference in footnote #1 should be taken out. "Controversial" is an almost meaningless word that tells us nothing about the subject. It's a distraction. In fact, I wouldn't use "controversial" that way in any serious discussion, of any topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.33.248.53 (talk) 02:41, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Header

I'm going to have to agree to what SlimVirgin wrote a few days ago: I'm not working on this article with so many poor writers with prejudiced viewpoints constantly screwing up the header. Here's a couple of ideas for everybody: 1. When you're writing an encyclopedia article on a term defined in the OED don't make up your own definition. 2. Don't let people who are prejudiced write an article on prejudice. This is hard for some to grasp on this page, as they basically write: "Sure, there is prejudice against Muslims. But isn't it justified, considering that Islam is a vile religion?" This is ridiculous. My favorites:

Matt 57: "So for me, no, I don't have prejudice against Islam. I know many facts about it and I made my judgement based on those facts, for example, just one of them being the 800 men on Banu Qurayza who were massacared on the orders on Muhammad."

Gee, Matt. It doesn't SOUND like you're prejudiced against Islam.

Limboot: (completely unintelligable writing). Wordsaladman is gone. RIP.

ProtectWomen: "...these people are victims of a terrible ideology that must be exposed for what it is."

Karl Meier: "CAIR is an extremist organization...the United Nations is often dominated by Islamic memberstates...the concept of islamophobia AND the way it is being used is controversial..." and other associated statements that reliably boil down to Islam is Bad and Criticism of Islam is Good.

Guys, I'm a white Roman Catholic guy who has no great love of Islam but some editors on this page need to take a step back and get some perspective on themselves before they contribute to an encyclopedic page about an Islam-related subject. MarkB2 05:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with most of your text, I would like to notice that OED is a dictionary, which may be quoted, as expert in English language, but not an ultimate authority in the topic. If only we could write that those who call criticism of Islam Islamophobia simply don't know English language. The problem that some of them do know English much better than average wikipedians. Mukadderat 05:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

We do not care what race or religion you are. We also do not care what you or anyone else thinks of islam. It is completely irrelevant to this article and to the writing of this encyclopedia. I advise you not to make personal attacks against other editors, as you just did against many. Everyone has a bias, and last I checked wikipedia policies, holding a particular bias was not a reason for someone to be blocked from editing. Articles should be NPOV, but expecting editors to be is unrealistic and ridiculous. Why not ban muslims from editing islam articles then? Obviously they are bias to be pro-islam. Or why not ban Christians from editing Christianity articles, or liberals from editing democratic articles, etc. It is just ridiculous and stupid, and if we did that, we probably wouldn't have any articles on wikipedia, since most people edit what interests them, and most people have a bias on that topic.

It does not matter whether we think Islamophobia exists or not. We can argue over that forever, and that is just further evidence that it is controversial. Islamophobia is controversial because 1. there is doubt as to if islamophobia exists, and 2. there is dispute over what is islamophobia and what is not. If islamophobia does exist, it is no secret that the term is drastically overused, so it still is controversial. Very few of the cases where the term has been used, the term has been used appropriately in my opinion. The vast majority of the time it is just used to bully critics of islam, and dismiss what they say as a form of prejudice (eg. Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, etc.). Virtually anything that might make Islam or muslims look bad has been labeled "islamophobic" (eg. Muhammad Cartoons, Pope comments, debate over burka, etc.). These things are not prejudices; they are simply opinions held by some that may be negative of islam, and are often provoked by muslims. That is why Islamophobia is controversial.--sefringle^Talk 01:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Please notice that these were not personal attacks against editors: these were attacks against expressed opinions. The only text that may be qualified as pesonal attack is the phrase "poor editors". Even its continuation "with prejudiced viewpoints" is a legit comment, since it is supplied with examples of "prejudiced viewpoints" with explanations. Please remember criticizing ideas and viewpoints must be clearly separated from criticizing editor's personal traits. The two are confused in wikipedia only too often. `'юзырь:mikka 02:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but saying some people are prejudice against Islam is making a personal attack.--sefringle^Talk 02:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yawn. WP:RFC/USER is thataway. (Though the bit about Limboot was amusing). Can we get back to the article now? - Merzbow 02:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

And your suggestion about its improvement is...? `'юзырь:mikka 02:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

MarkB2, no one is making up their own definations here. What issue do you have with the current header? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

His issue is he doesn't want "controversial" in the header.--sefringle^Talk 02:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sefringle! MarkB2, the use and defination of Islamophobia is not agreed upon by the various sources, hence controversial. If you disagree with those people, it doesnt mean you have to assert 100% that Islamophobia is a genuine term. The word controversial lays out the facts - its not agreed upon by everyone (that doesnt and cannot include us). Look at this way: If some people said that AppleDoo means the color Blue and others disagree, then this is a controversial term. You cant start out an article on AppleDoo by saying that it means Blue. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

"If some people said that AppleDoo means the color Blue and others disagree, then this is a controversial term." does any source assert that Islamophobia is isn't defined as discrimination/prejudice against Islam/Muslims? if the critics do, then they are criticising a different definition, and not the one established by (real) academics. ITAQALLAH 18:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it is time to take this issue to mediation.--Sefringle^Talk 22:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Mukadderat: I have a degree in English. I've done graduate work in English. If there is an ultimate authority on the English language, it is the OED.

Matt 57: Of all of the definitions of "Islamophobia" I've seen, all of them nearly identicle, none hedge the definition of it twice by inserting "controversial" and "what its proponents see" into a definition that is typically about three words: "prejudice against Muslims." Besides, the header definition as is makes no sense. "What its proponents see?" So the proponents of Islamophobia are the ones criticizing others for having it?

Islamophobia is prejudice against Muslims. Period. Critics who say the term is misused shouldn't have space in the header any more than critics of the use of the term Antisemitism or Racism have space in the header of those articles.

Sefringle: I should be careful about personal attacks, of course. But when people are behaving badly they need a finger in their chest, rhetorically speaking. As far as your convictions that Islamophobia is "drastically overused," I beg to differ. Anyone pointing to an example of bigotry is going to be making a point that is controversial: what is or is not prejudice is usually a debatable point. But when you stick "controversial" into the definition, and then mention what the opponents of the "concept" think right after the definition, and then spend 40% of the header describing the arguments of people who think the term has virtually no legitimacy you give the impression that the entire concept of anti-Muslim prejudice is debatable: which, unfortunately, is what it appears you WANT to do.

Oh, yes, yes, of course, you say, anti-Muslim prejudice exists...somewhere...theoretically speaking...but our culture is so FLOODED with false examples of Islamophobia we should REALLY REALLY emphasize that the term is frequently abused. The article header as it is reflects your views of the frequency and the use of "Islamophobia." That is why it sucks. MarkB2 00:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Not all prejudices are as overlabeled as islamophobia is. There is little doubt as to what is antisemitism and what is not (except for New antisemitism) Same thing with racism. But criticism of Judaism is not labeled as antisemitism. However cirticism of Islam is almost always labeled as islamophobia.--Sefringle^Talk 03:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You would have to prove that to me. How often is "almost always?" 99%? 75%? I haven't heard any objective evidence that Islamophopbia is overlabeled, just a bunch of opinions from notable and no so notable people. On the other hand, I'm not sure it's not overlabeled either, just some other opinions. there really doesn't seem to be a consensus but it does seem to me that the critics are in the minority. As far as Judaism is concerned, I'm not sure that criticism of Judaism isn't labeled Antisemitism. Certainly criticism of Israel is frequently labeled antisemitism. Also, criticism of Affirmative action is often labelled as Racism, whether it is or not. Anyway, what is the difference between Antisemitism or Islamophobia and legitimate criticism of either religion? It seems as if that these issues are still disputed. It's also imporetant to consider who is doing the labeling. I'm sure there's someone out there will to label any criticism as predjudice.Umer Al-Amerikee 17:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, as an outsider that is also dealing with a seperate controvertial issue (Atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki), and suggested solutions to other controvertial pages (Barney Frank), I do not see the need for "alleged" or other hedging in the title or the header. The page of Antisemitism does not have "alleged" in it's title, nor in most of its incidents. I think the "alleged" should move to the issues that have not been yet proven, or that are one-sided attacks, but real instances of antimuslim (or antisemitic) behavior do not get an alleged tag. Yes, some folks construe any act against them as an attack on their group, and some of the examples (the French law to reduce ALL religious symbols, the Flying Imams) should get the alleged tag, but the whole section should not be tarred with the "alleged" label. IMO, of course. And as for overuse of a negative tag, "homophobic" got overused during the gay marriage discussion, and yes, islamophobic is being overused in the media today. When Iran hosted a Holocaust Denial party, and accused critics of being Islamophobic in response, the irony was so thick I had to wipe my TV screen afterwards. But, put the alleged on the incidents that are alleged, not on the whole section, and put the hedging on the criticism section, and not in the title paragraph. CodeCarpenter 20:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

A notable Iranian reaction to be added

... to Alleged_acts_of_Islamophobia, this shoudn't be controversial:

After Salman Rushdie was awarded a [[knighthood]] in the [[Queen's Birthday Honours]] in June 2007, the [[Iran]]ian [[Foreign Ministry]] qualified the honoring of "a hated [[apostate]]" as Islamophobic.<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www2.irna.com/en/news/view/line-203/0706177335144730.htm | title = British knighthood for Rushdie, clear sign of Islamophobia | accessdate = 2007-06-17 | publisher = Iranian Foreign Ministry / [[IRNA]] }}</ref>

--tickle me 20:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That is definently proof of the controversy reguarding the term.--Sefringle^Talk 23:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

To add this issue shouldn't be controversial, I didn't mean the term itself. --tickle me 02:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I support its addition--Sefringle^Talk 19:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

This header issue has gone unresolved long enough. If we are ever going to get the page unprotected without edit warring, I think we need to take it to mediation. --Sefringle^Talk 03:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think mediation might be a good idea although I'm not familiar with it in the Wikipedia context. However, since many of the editors to this page don't seem to want to discuss the page outside their edit summaries, I'm not sure it will work.Umer Al-Amerikee 19:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll put in the request for mediation. I'm not completely sure who all the involved parties are, so if I forget to add you, add yourself.--Sefringle^Talk 19:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The mediation link is here.--Sefringle^Talk 23:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

German Wikipedia version of this article

A google translation of the German Wikipedia version of this article is here and not suprisingly conforms to a neutral point of view. Addhoc 22:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Also mention that the lead is entirely OR as its not sourced. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The German language version of Wikipedia has separate articles for both Islamophobia and anti-Islamic sentiment. I believe the English version should have one as well. The current organization of the Islamophobia article on Wikipedia brings into question the notion of the very existence of the possibility of discrimination against people who are Islamic, and that is clearly an absurd notion for an encyclopedia to present. Padishah5000 00:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, they're not a good example to follow in this case. If they're allowing blatant OR to sit in the Islamophobia article like that, it looks like no one cares whats happening on their article, so please, dont bring up the German article for any example to follow. --Matt57^{(talk•contribs)} 12:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then what of a second article of anti-Islamic sentiment? After all, Islamophobia certainly is a controversial term, but prejudice, bigotry, defamation and hate crimes against those of Islamic backgrounds, and those seen as being Muslim, certainly is not. Only very extreme ideologues with hate agendas that are anti-Islamic would argue that the very existence and possibility of prejudice and discrimination against someone perceived as being Muslim, does not exist. Padishah5000 19:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Islamophobia is just a word to describe the idea. It could have been called anything; the meaning is still the same, and it is just as controversial. Please calm down and stop suggesting that people are prejudice against Islam or are extremists; such accusations are personal attacks, and comments with these accusations will be removed from now on per WP:NPA#Removal of text.--Sefringle^Talk 19:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

So your view is that it is impossible for discrimination and prejudice to exist towards people viewed as being from "Islamic" backgrounds? If need be, I would be more than happy to include hate crime statistics from the U.S and Europe that would quickly clear up the matter. After all, this is the article about just such subject matter. Padishah5000

I didn't say that. Don't put words in my mouth. Please re-read what I wrote and respond to that.--Sefringle^Talk 20:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

And its NOT absurd to suggest that Islamophobia doesnt exist or is not a valid term. When RS have said so it must be reported and thus made clear that its a controversial term. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 12:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

To suggest that prejudice and discrimination against people of Islamic backgrounds and origins does not exist in the western world is only the view held by extreme bigots and racists with related hate agendas. It is one thing to argue over a certain terminology and its usage, such as "Islamophobia", but another thing to suggest that discrimination against a highly visible minority group does not and cannot exist. Anti-Islamic views and sentiments are very real, and so is the results of those views, such as hate crimes and employment discrimination. Padishah5000 19:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Please refraim from calling certian views extremist and racist. Such allegations are personal attacks agains't all who might have that view.--Sefringle^Talk 20:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Certain views are extremist and racist, and do not belong in an encyclopedia such as this. I will continue to point out such extremist views when I seem them. Padishah5000 19:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Such comments can easily be removed, and if you continue to post comments that are personal attacks, I will report you to WP:AN/I.--Sefringle^Talk 04:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me as though you are trying to THREATEN me to stifle my input into this article. Please stop. Padishah5000 21:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Padishah5000, your comment illustrates precisely why islamophobia is a controversial term. It links "prejudice and discrimination against people of Islamic backgrounds" with "Anti-Islamic views". It is quite possible to be strongly opposed to Islam as an idea with genuine commitment against both discrimination and to hostility towards people who hold that belief.Dejvid 16:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but then does that not go far beyond the purpose of an encyclopedic article? Does that not then justify a separate article on "Anti-Islamic Sentiment"? After all, there is very real discrimination and hatred towards those who are viewed as coming from Islamic backgrounds in the west, and many have suffered for as a result. I should know. That element of the article is not open to debate. Seeking the opinion of the likes of Robert Spencer on the reality of discrimination against immigrants and people of culturally Islamic backgrounds is akin to asking David Duke if he feels that discrimination against people who are of Jewish, Catholic, Mexican, or African-American backgrounds is a reality. Yes, the term "Islamophobe" may be used to silence criticism and opposition by some in the political arena, but that is true of all "phobias" and "antis" one can think of. The fact that the centerpiece of the article is to question the very existence of the possibility that discrimination and prejudicial thought exists against those perceived as Muslim is a travesty, to say the least. Padishah5000 19:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There is undoubtedly discrimination against Muslims. The problem is in choosing a term which implies that there is an automatic link between prejudice against Muslims and opposition to Islam as an idea. There is also a problem with a term that labels opposition to Islam as by definition irrational. Compare Anti-communism with Communism-phobia. Would not such a term be, in itself, controversial?Dejvid 20:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You make a very valid point, and I certainly I understand your comparison between "Islamophobia" with "Communism-phobia", at least to a degree. (I would argue that there is a cultural and racial element to certain forms of anti-Islamic sentiment, and that there is a large difference between Islam the religion and religious doctrine, as opposed to Islamic cultures as a whole, but that is another subject matter). The question then is, should there be a separate article from "Islamophobia the political term", as opposed to anti-Islamic sentiment that deals with discrimination against those perceived to be of Islamic backgrounds, such as an article titled "Anti-Islam". I very much would like your input on this matter, as you seem to be a rational observer. Padishah5000 22:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There is already the page Persecution of Muslims. Persecution implies that the discrimination (or worse) is motivated by hostility towards the religion which is often not the fundamental basis. An extreme example being Bosnian Muslims who converted to Orthodoxy who were then later ethnically cleansed by Serb hardliners. There are certainly some forms of hostility towards Muslims that uses opposition to Islam as a cover - eg the BNP. Anti-Islam would imply to me opposition to the idea rather than to the people who hold that view tho there is of course an overlap (eg BNP again). I agree that more pages that are more specific seems to offer the best route to a consensus.Dejvid 22:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, my concern is rather two-fold in this regard. Firstly, there exists comparable articles for other religious and ethno-religious groups. For example, there exists articles for both Anti-Hinduism and the Persecution of Hindus, as well as articles for both Anti-Christian prejudice and Persecution of Christians. In fact, the comparable term Christianophobia links directly to the article Anti-Christian prejudice. None of these articles presented dare make the claim that discrimination towards those groups does "not exist". Yet, for Islam, we have a situation where the term anti-Islam links to an article entitled Islamophobia, which in turn questions the very reality of the concept. Now, one can argue the very quality, purpose and meaning of the term "Islamophobia"(I personally hate the word), and how it may relate to other not used concepts, such as "Communismophobia", for example. That is entirely fair and justified, when one views Islam as purely a theological abstract, or a theologically political forces, such as the case with Islamism. It becomes problematic and very different in nature, when one recognizes the reality that Islam the religion is not necessarily them same as Islam the ethno-religious perception. In America, one is not pulled aside by homeland security because they are a "Muslim", but rather because they are perceived as "looking" to be a Muslim, i.e a person of Islamic cultural origin[3]. People are perceived as being "Islamic" regardless of the religious belief or ethnicity in America, based in many cases on how they simply look(I am an agnostic who has experienced this first hand, many times, but that is off-topic). Thus, an imagined phobia quickly transgresses into a very real prejudice, and an "anti-sentiment" of sorts. Though one can dislike communists either rationally or irrationally for idealogical reasons, I am not aware of a modern ethnic or racial element in its perception, though one could argue that there is large Antisemitic and even Russophobic elements to it. I hope this has clariffied my viewpoint. Padishah5000 21:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Biased lead

The article starts by saying the term is controversial, and quotes a writing by none other than the infamous Robert Spencer on that bit. I'm removing it. If every article that is considered controversial by some extremist had the same bit included in the lead, I wouldn't mind keeping it here. Until then, it goes! Lixy 10:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• AGREED. Quoting Robert Spencer in a lead on the topic of Islamophobia/anti-Islamic sentiment is absurd. Padishah5000 20:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

So what if its Robert Spencer? Its a controversial term because reliable sources have disagreed on its meaning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mukadderat (talk • contribs) 18:17, 11 July 2007.

I don't know. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Spencer is an ACCUSED "Islamophobe"[4] , amongst other things. His opinion should not carry the WEIGHT of the article, I would imagine. Just maybe...Also, could you do me a favor and sign your posts? I know you probably forgot this time, but it does help alot. Thanks in advance! Padishah5000 03:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

So if a notable person is accused of something, that means he cannot cited in that article? Not. - Merzbow 04:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope. That is not what I said at all. I was speaking of Spencer's "WEIGHT" within the article. He holds extreme views, and should be noted as such, and not be given the lead in the article. Its that simple. Padishah5000 21:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Padishah, who are you to label his views as extreme? How are the other views not extreme? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, plenty of noted academics in fields related to the study of both Islam and the regions of the Middle East and South Asia have labeled his views as extreme, such as Carl Ernst, Juan Cole and Mark LeVine. Fields in which Robert Spencer is certainly not a noted academic of;[5][6]. His website "Jihadwatch" has been banned in many corporate and governmental settings, as well as blogging websites, as a labeled hate site[7], even in his own words[8]. I personally find his recommendation of forcing Muslim Americans to take a "special test"[9] to prove their loyalty to be rather extreme and bigoted, but that is just my humble opionion. I wonder if I would have to take that brave little test that Mr.Spencer is recommending, if he were to get his way, on account of my ancestry? I wonder if I would pass, being a veteran of the U.S Army and all. Either way, I am done with my input into this matter. If this article is to be written as a justification of discrimination and hate towards those from culturally Islamic backgrounds, simply by denying that discrimination and hate's very existence, so be it. I am sure those readers who seek such justification will gladly find it in this article, and those who do not, will be able to look beyond it's clear intents. Oh, well... Padishah5000 03:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

see Ad hominem. That basicly sums up their (and your) views of Spencer.--Sefringle^Talk

65.96.221.234 14:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC) If one is to automatically discredit Spencer, or anyone elses view that Islamophobia is a political tool used to silence people, then logic dictates that the criticism section be removed too. If the term is NOT controversial, then the critism page is null and void? Ironically these actions are what the critics deplore.

03:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a mediation thing going on right now to which you will also probably have to agree on when its done. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

OK I know this issue is under mediation at the moment, but I think it's worth pointing out that none of the equivalent articles which deal with discrimination against other racial/religious groups (eg anti-Hinduism) that I looked at in a very quick trawl describe those terms as being "controversial" in the first few words of the lead paragraph. Nor do the articles on Anti-Americanism and New antisemitism, which perhaps are a better comparison as they are also terms which a lot of legitimate sources would claim are used as political devices to deflect valid criticism, or which don't really exist, at least according to the definition that others have put on them. In any event it's a bit simplistic to say a phrase or issue is "controversial", just because people can be found who disagree about it. On that basis pretty much everything is controversial. Ultimately its inclusion here reads to me as a bit of a POV push to hint that "it's not a real phenomenon you know, what are 'they' complaining about"; then as ever, the editors who want the word kept in spam the page with multiple references which supposedly back their point up. This is easy to do, and superficially satisfies guidelines on sources and OR, but is actually less impressive than it looks. Fine, cover the debate and the criticism but leave the judgemental adjectives out of the intro. --Nickhh 17:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you look again, critical opinions of the usage of the terms New antisemitism and Anti-Americanism are stated in the intros of those articles, so that really makes your analogy null and void.--Sefringle^Talk 01:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Er, no. My point is specifically - and very clearly - about the use of the word controversial in the first few words of the intro (I think I made this clear about four times in my comment). This is also the point made at the opening of this section. The other articles don't have it, this one does. Perhaps you could "look again" at what I wrote. --Nickhh 07:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Qouting Piers Benn

In the section above, #Opinions of various people I detailed expain why this is not qualified to be quoted with opinion on this sensitive and controversial subjest. After waiting very long time for arguments, I deleted it. Now my deletion is kept reverted without any talk in talk page. This is disrespect and not a way to resolve disagreements. I spent much time on my arguments and I expect the opponents do the same, rather than click revert. Mukadderat 21:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Why are you removing him? He's a Ph.D, lecturer in philosphy and is a notable person. His interests include ethics. Read his article for more information: Piers Benn. Ofcourse he's qualified to comment on Islamophobia. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

His interests do not include islam or politics. He is not speaking in area of his expertise. Ethics is a very broad topic but this does not mean that he may be quoted in everythig what happens in the world. BTW, I wrote an article about him myself when I was researching who is this unknown guy to be quoted about islamophobia. I despise your disrespectful way of editing and will no longer be engaged in this dispute. Mukadderat 22:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Its not a case of disrespect. Its a case where people are removing sourced relevant information because they dont like it. I didnt see you protest about the opinions of "Muzammil Quraishi"? He doesnt even have an article, is thus non-notable and should be removed ideally.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Not only you are twisting other people's arms, you are using Your logic is called red herring or Tu quoque. Mukadderat 17:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"Islamophobia-phobia" - this is clearly a neoligsm (not heard of other phobia-phobias). Can it be shown that this is acceptable per WP:NEO and is not giving undue weight to Benn? → AA ^(talk) — 12:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The link says: "Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources.". Its a reliable source being cited properly. Its not UNDUE weight, because its just a few lines. Its an alternate point of view. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources may very well be simply irrelevant. I may put tons of garbage here from reliable sources. Benn with his occasional blurb has simply no weight here. He is not known to have any research on the issue. Millions of respectable people have respectable opinions, but they are simply this: opinions. This is encyclopedia, not collection of smart quotes. We need facts, generalizations. Mukadderat 17:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll listen to you when you remove non-notable "Muzammil Quraishi" from the article. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

red herring or Tu quoque. We are talking a specific case. I don't care about other parts at the moment. However if you insist, I will consider this. However unlike you, I will take time to investigate, not to trigger-jump with edits by like/dislike. Mukadderat 18:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The section is clearly relevant and discusses an issue that is directly relevant to the articles topic. There are no reasons to remove it. -- Karl Meier 18:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Mudakerat, Ok fine, if thats the way you want to go: No one is required to do "research" in Islamophobia before being qualified to comment on it. He's a Ph.D. lecturer in philosphy, is a notable professor and teaches Ethics- thats all the qualifications you need to comment on Islamophobia. Ethics are about right and wrong and he's telling people (according to his qualified opinion) whats wrong with this term Islamophobia. I've removed Muzamil now because he's non-notable. If there anyone that needs to go its Muzamil. We dont put in non-notable people's opinions here. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Muzammil Quraishi not notable enough to be quoted

Correct me if I'm wrong, but: "Muzammil Quraishi" is not notable enough to be quoted so therefore he has to go. You cant put non-notable people in, thats a very basic policy otherwise I'll ask my friends Tom, Dick and Harry to write something about Islamophobia so it can be quoted here and I'm sure no one will agree with that. Please stick to policies, the violations of which are blatantly obvious in this case. If you want to put him in you're going to have to create an article on him first which has multiple non-trivial reliable 3rd party references. If you cant find those references, then he cant be mentioned in this article. The fact that he's a professor and has written a book "Muslims and Crime: A Comparative Study" means that he can comment on Islamophobia but his opinion can be included only if he's notable. In the light of WP:BK, publishing a book doesnt mean you're somebody automatically. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

"The fact remains that the term 'Islamophobia' has one purpose — to suppress any criticism, legitimate or not, of Islam"

I have added a shortened form from Dennis Prager's article on double standards, Why "Islamophobia" Is a Brilliant Term:

"Whoever coined the term 'Islamophobia' was quite shrewd," chimes in Dennis Prager. "Notice the intellectual sleight of hand here. … One can rightly or wrongly fear Islam, or more usually, aspects of Islam, and have absolutely no bias against all Muslims, let alone be a racist. The equation of Islamophobia with racism is particularly dishonest. Muslims come in every racial group, and Islam has nothing to do with race. Nevertheless, mainstream Western media, Islamist groups calling themselves Muslim civil liberties groups and various Western organizations repeatedly declare that Islamophobia is racism. … Even granting that there are people who fear Islam, how does that in any way correlate with racism? If fear of an ideology rendered one racist, all those who fear conservatism or liberalism should be considered racist. … However, the only religion the West permits criticism of is Christianity. People write books, give lectures and conduct seminars on the falsity of Christian claims, or on the immoral record of Christianity, and no one attacks them for racism or bigotry, let alone attacks them physically. The head of the Anti-Defamation League announces that conservative Christians are the greatest threat to America today, and no one charges him with racism or Christianophobia. The statement may be an expression of hysteria and of ignorance, but not of racism. But if one says that Islam does not appear compatible with democracy or that the Islamic treatment of women is inferior to the West's, he or she is labeled a racist Islamophobe. … The fact remains that the term 'Islamophobia' has one purpose — to suppress any criticism, legitimate or not, of Islam. And given the cowardice of the Western media, and the collusion of the left in banning any such criticism (while piling it on Christianity and Christians), it is working." Asteriks 19:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Very perceptive - but note that the same thing can apply to people accused of antisemitism. In that case, one need not even have mentioned the religion of Judaism or the followers thereof, one need only have criticised Israel. I'm very wary of all these articles, I don't think they serve any real purpose in the encyclopaedia. The only people who'll pay attention are those who seek to incite fear and hatred of the followers of other religions. Why encourage them? PalestineRemembered 22:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Have we lost it? This is Sesame Street at its basic level. Islam a phobia Islam a phobia Islamaphobia. I know I am not the only one who understands that the word by definition is FEAR OF ISLAM. Not muslims, not fear and hating. Just Fear. Certainly there is room for a straight forward definition before we get into quotes, which for all of there greatness, is nothing more than opinion by notable people. Greroja 21:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, so yes there is a place for discussion of the different points of view. I agree that probably the Prager quote, while interesting, has no place in the encyclopedia article. There's a much better quote from Afshin Ellian that was cut from the article some time ago:

“ Free speech is in danger of being increasingly restricted by invoking “Islamophobia” and “racism”. And some intellectuals have already capitulated. For example, the opera Aisha was called off in Rotterdam in 2001, because the wife of the Prophet was depicted on stage. The production had to be cancelled because a number of actresses felt threatened. Recently a columnist on the national daily NRC Handelsblad, Hasna el Maroudi was forced to abandon her column because of threats of violence from the Moroccan community. What has happened to civil courage? Why do we hear nothing from the publishers, artists, media and colleagues of people who have capitulated about the consequences of this voluntary capitulation? ”

Even that quote, while very relevant, was removed. In the end saying things like "Have we lost it? This is Sesame Street at its basic level" are not at all helpful towards bringing the discussion on such a controversial issue forward. This discussion page has many people watching who deeply disagree with each other, and yet are willing to engage in civil discussion with each other. Let's keep it that way! JACOPLANE • 2007-08-1 21:35

This is an excellent quote. Who removed it? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone here interested in changing Arachnaphobia into racism against spiders... this is a serious question. I mean if I fear spiders, and if I promote my knowledge of my fear, I am in essence warning people of my fear (unfounded or not), and therefore am engaged in acts against the interests of spiders. Tell me this is not the arguement of the posters here. Wait I forgot to mentions the cowardice of the media, Jews, or Christian spiders... all very valid points in any post.Greroja 21:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Colleague, please keep in mind that we are not discussing our undertsnading of the topic, but what is published in reliable sources. Of course, your logic is very keen, but unfortunately you cannot provide any reference that discusses "racism against spiders". On the contrary, most of what is discussed here was published somewhere. You may disagree with some interpretations, but regardless, wikipedia has to report notable opinions of experts in the domain, who can summarize and judge the issue. Mukadderat 23:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

'controversial' again

I just read through the whole thing, mediation and all (seems movement on mediation has been stagnant for a week or so),and I have a question: how is this different from Anti-Christian discrimination or Antisemitism or Anti-Hinduism? is it the usage of the word phobia? would 'Anti-Islam discrimination' make it not controversial? then again, Christianophobia is acceptable as common? the sources listed seem to protest the use of the term to hinder criticism of fundamentalist Islam, but how does that make it more 'controversial' than antisemitism hindering criticism of fundamentalist Judaism for example? the concept of discrimination on the basis of religion has been there in some way or the other for every major religion throughout history, I dont see why Islam is different? --Shipmaster 02:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The answer is simple. Do you have reliable sources that protest against Christianphobia and other phobias? I dont think so, so the case is different here. Critics have strongly spoken out against Islamophobia. Can you say the same about Christianphobia and other religious phobias? No. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

We certainly have reliable sources saying that the charge of antisemitism is hindering criticism os Israel: Some have argued that the charge of antisemitism is being misused as a way to silence criticism of Israel. After Jimmy Carter published his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid he was labelled an antisemite.

Rashid Khalidi, a Director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia University and a target of Campus Watch says:

"This noxious campaign is intended to silence such perfectly legitimate criticism, by tarring it with the brush of anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism, truly loathsome charges. They reveal the lengths that these people apparently feel impelled to go to in order to silence a true debate on campus."

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Liftarn (talk • contribs) 2007-08-08 (UTC)

Perceptions section

This section is terribly biased and one-sided. It present a number of cherry picked opinions of those supporting the concept, and is giving no room to those criticizing it. Biased content such as "In some societies, Islamophobia has materialized due to the portrayal of Islam and Muslims as the national "Other", where exlusion and discrimination occurs on the basis of their religion and civilization which differs with national tradition and identity. Examples include Pakistani and Algerian migrants in Britain and France respectively." has no place in a serious Encyclopedia. First, the concept itself is disputed, so the claim that anyone at all is suffering from a condition called "Islamophobia" is highly controversial, and we shouldn't endorse any views regarding that as facts. Second, classifying those seeing people supporting an ideology that divides people the way Islam in many cases do as somehow "-phobic", is a very big claim, and not something that is neutral to include without proper qualifications. After that follows a number of cherry picked opinions, that all claim that those that are seeing Muslims as "others" and who is thus "Islamophobic" are somehow racist. That is of course a even stronger claim, which is again not balanced with a number of opposing views.

Another problem with the section is how the Runnymede Trust definition is being presented. According to Itaqallah, RT has identified a number of perceptions related to Islamophobia. However to say that they have in fact identified anything is biased, and we are not here to endorse their views or perceptions. The previous version mentioned that they have published their opinions and that they "described Islamophobia as involving eight distinctive features". That was apparently not sufficient for Itaqallah. I am interested in knowing why?

The section does in general make many claims about what is "Islamophobic" without any qualifications and without giving voice to opposing views. Another strong claim that is being presented as a fact is that it is a "feature of Islamophobic discourse" to amalgamate Islam and politics. Apart from that being a biased and useless claim, I wonder if the many Muslims that are doing just that is also "Islamophobic"? -- Karl Meier 22:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

the section has been written using academic sources, which is something that can hardly be said about a lot of the other content which is vigorously defended in this article.

• "First, the concept itself is disputed, so the claim that anyone at all is suffering from a condition called "Islamophobia" is highly controversial" - this is not a reason for blanking reliably sourced content. i have provided two academic sources describing the perception of the "other" - can you provide a reliable source opposing this fact? if you can, then we discuss how to incorporate both opinions. all that i can see at the moment, however, is your having to remind editors that as this concept is so "highly controversial", and thus, any facts about Islamophobia - and there are plenty - must be shoehorned on the basis of this spurious pretext. Islamophobia and its trends are discussed in the most academic sources available (Oxford Uni press, Routledge), and i don't think the opposition of a number of partisan political commentators should alter the entire face of the article.

Your above comment pretty much makes your biased approach to this article clear. You dismiss the critical voices as "a number of partisan political commentators", eventhough they in fact include a number of highly notable authors, journalists, academics etc. It is true that a scholarly sources do mention the concept of Islamophobia, but that not the same as it being accepted. I am sure that we would also be to track down a number of sources that mention for example astrology. Anyway, the word is not even being included in a number of the most respected dictionaries such as the OED. -- Karl Meier 06:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

actually, it's the Encyclopedia of Race and Ethnic studies which attributes opposition to right-wing commentators. scholarly sources just don't "mention" Islamophobia, they treat it like any other sociological phenomena: discussing its trends and increasing prevelance, its history, underlying causes, case studies related to it, the perceptions involved, Islamophobia in work and media, and so on (all of which should be covered in the article). the sources i listed in the article are a good starting point, and there are more of the same. none of them just "mention the concept", as you put it. by the way, "Islamophobia" is in the SOED and in the OED [10][11] ITAQALLAH 14:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• "classifying those seeing people supporting an ideology that divides people the way Islam in many cases do as somehow "-phobic", is a very big claim, and not something that is neutral to include without proper qualifications" - a "very big claim" - which a plethora of academic sources make. if you feel qualifications are needed (though i have seen no academic source deny anti-Muslim discrimination outright), then please employ them (as opposed to removing it).

You mean a plethora of Islamic organizations and individuals that dream about being able to declare their critics insane? Also the article doesn't just discuss anti-Muslim discrimination. It discuss what critics call a "wretched concept that confuses criticism of Islam as a religion and stigmatization of those who believe in it". -- Karl Meier 06:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

"You mean a plethora of Islamic organizations" - no, i'm talking about academic sources. Islamophobia is a well accepted concept in academia, who discuss it at good length. all sources used discuss "Islamophobia", not just "anti-Muslim discrimination" (although they are virtually the same). critics such as Salman Rushdie (who you quote), while having a space in this article, are not on par with real scholarly sources. ITAQALLAH 14:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• "After that follows a number of cherry picked opinions, that all claim that those that are seeing Muslims as "others" and who is thus "Islamophobic" are somehow racist. That is of course a even stronger claim, which is again not balanced with a number of opposing views" - as said previously, if i have not faithfully represented scholarly opinion on the topic of perceptions associated with Islamophobia, which is a topic virtually untouched in the article, then please balance it with equally reputed sources. until then, please don't make unsubstantiated accusations of cherry-picking. additionally, there are plenty of reliable sources which describe a relationship between Islamophobia and racism. "balance" does not mean for the article to equate reliable sources with political commentators of a known bias; as i have said previously, if you see opposition of this point in a scholarly source, please do provide it.

It is not up to me to make your contributions neutral. If you want to add something, it is up to you to make it neutral if you want it to stick. I am talking about the tone, about not being one-sided and about faithfully presenting the whole debate, not just presenting your cherry picked sources and opinions. -- Karl Meier 06:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

the material is neutral and academically verifiable. again, you are arguing on the basis that there are academic views about perceptions involved in Islamophobia that have not been mentioned. please substantiate this basis first. representing the "whole debate" does not mean to whitewash facts with compromising language ("alleged") or to equate real scholarly discussion (which this article should be based on) with the protest of critics at every turn. ITAQALLAH 14:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• "Another problem with the section is how the Runnymede Trust definition is being presented. According to Itaqallah, RT has identified a number of perceptions related to Islamophobia. However to say that they have in fact identified anything is biased, and we are not here to endorse their views or perceptions. The previous version mentioned that they have published their opinions and that they "described Islamophobia as involving eight distinctive features"." - so why didn't you just replace "identified" with "described" - Islamophobia is a matter well accepted in scholarly sources, so it doesn't matter either way.

What I wanted to was not that I can edit the article. What I wanted to know was why did you do it in the first place? Also, it is just one example of how your extremely biased editing has turned the article into a POV essay that present a number of controversial opinions as facts. -- Karl Meier 06:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

that they are "controversial opinions" is your personal original research. to depict the issue as a topic of fierce academic dispute requires proof from academic sources. the only academic i know who even remotely questions the concept is Halliday (who says "anti-Muslimism" is a better term than Islamophobia, and this has been discussed and responded to by other academics). it seems that "biased", to you, means to write upon the presumption that Islamophobia exists. unfortunately, you're going to have a lot of problems with academic sources if you argue on that basis. ITAQALLAH 14:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• "The section does in general make many claims about what is "Islamophobic" without any qualifications..." - i have provided a number of qualifications. "... and without giving voice to opposing views." please review the article again, we have a massive section filled with nice large quotes from every critic saying anything remotely negative about Islamophobia.

Neutrality doesn't just apply to one section. NPOV apply to the whole article. -- Karl Meier 06:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

there is no evidence that the perceptions mentioned are particularly controversial in academic circles. NPOV doesn't mean equating scholars with non-scholars, or to write with unauthoritative language on an article falsely depicted as controversial, or to removed well sourced academic opinion. ITAQALLAH 14:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• "Another strong claim that is being presented as a fact is that it is a "feature of Islamophobic discourse" to amalgamate Islam and politics." - again, a "strong claim" - cited to a strong source. the bracketed examples as provided in the article and source demonstrate exactly what is meant when it discusses an 'amalgamation' in Islamophobic discourse. ITAQALLAH 22:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That you believe that you have a good source, doesn't mean that you should be presenting the opinions of it as facts. Even well-sourced information can be arranged and presented in a way that is against everything that policies such as NPOV and NOR stands for. -- Karl Meier 06:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

i have provided attribution where relevant, and the views are present in multiple academic sources. could you explain in what way NOR is pertinent here? ITAQALLAH 14:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Persecution of Muslims

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was no consensus to merge. → AA ^(talk) — 11:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Persecution of Muslims is a similar topic to Islamophobia, so I am proposing a merger.--Sefringle^Talk 03:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

the article Islamophobia is about the neologism formed by Runnymede and the sociological studies associated with Runnymede's characterisation. the article Persecution of Muslims is about the persecution of Muslims and its history. i think the two topics are distinct enough to merit seperate articles (see, for example, Christianophobia and Persecution of Christians). there are also almost certainly no sources specifically applying the term established by Runnymede in '97 to every specific instance of persecution in history; thus to appendage the label of Islamophobia to all of these instances would be original research. these reasons, combined with the fact that the persecution article is actually quite big, make a merge unlikely and inadvisable. ITAQALLAH 03:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

First, The Christianophobia article doesn't exist. It is titled "Anti-Christian discrimination". Secondly, the term Antisemitism was coined in 1860, but antisemitism certianly existed long before 1860. That article describes the history of persecution of Jews long before 1860. If islamophobia is a legitimate topic, it should be timeless; any form of prejudice against muslims from any time period, past, present, or future, could be termed as Islamophobia, and it wouldn't necessarily be origional research. It should also be pointed out that much of the Persecution of Muslims article is actually origional research, and the removial of such material may make the article small enough to warrent a merge.--Sefringle^Talk 04:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

There is also no artice on "anti-Islamic sentiment". Why? Atari400 00:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Islamophobia is that article.--Sefringle^Talk 04:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not see how that can be possible, as the article on Islamophobia calls into question the very existance of the notion in due part, treating the concept as a neologism. By merging "Persecution of Muslims" article with the article on Islamophobia, it would appear as though the intent is draw into question the very existence of such historical persecution, which can't possibly be the case. Atari400 07:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Christianophobia is spefically discussed in the article, and mentioned in bold in the opening sentence. "If islamophobia is a legitimate topic, it should be timeless" - i don't agree with that premise (i'm assuming you mean "notable topic", not "legitimate topic"), and it's not something i see in our notability guidelines. "Antisemitism was coined in 1860, but antisemitism certianly existed long before 1860." - yes, but the point is that academic scholarship, during over a hundred years since the coinage, has applied the term antisemitism to various instances in history even before 1860; and thus the application of the coinage is verifiable by reliable sources. the point, as explained above, is that a reliable source must make the specific attribution of Islamophobia, else it's WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. for example: to suggest that the Meccan persecution saga was an example of Islamophobia (as defined by the Runnymede trust) would be an incredible anachronism and highly amusing, but not something academically verifiable nor appropriate in an encyclopedia. the two topics are notable enough in their own right to merit seperate articles. ITAQALLAH 04:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I meant legitimate topic, not notable topic. That wasn't a mistake. The two topics really aren't notable enough to merit seperation. The persecution of muslims has many of the same problems the persecution by muslims has. I figure it is better to merge and weed out the questionable material. Ultimately this comes down to whether persecution is discrimination. If it is, the topics are the same. If it isn't they are not. Islamophobia is just a name for a concept.--Sefringle^Talk 04:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with merge. This article is not about the historical persecution but about the neoligism and it's uses as verified by RS's. To extend the use of it where it is not clearly linked by sources is synthesis and WP:OR. Also, not sure if you're suggesting this article fails WP:N which would be incorrect as evidenced by the three AfDs which resulted in "keep". → AA ^(talk) — 08:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the merge as well. Not every case of Islamophobia is as well a case of persecution. And not every persecution incident is rooted by Islamophobia. --Raphael1 09:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely disagree. Anachronistic and erroneous. Mukadderat 22:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Etymological fallacy

--Funnyguy555 09:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

We are talking about a neologism here. In such cases it is quite natural that different people put different meaning into a word. Not to say that words change meanings and an encyclopedic article has to cover all usages, which is not fallacy, but history. A person who intentionally promotes a meaning of a neologism which does not follow from its etymology may be rightfully suspected in playing dirty games "etymological warfare" :-). Mukadderat 18:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's define the word "Important".

Import + -ant. Something that is imported. That's what an etymological fallacy is.--0pos0sop 22:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No it is not. It is etymological joke. Also, what's your point? `'Míkka 22:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Mediation failed

Since the mediation obviously stalled over a single word in the intro and the revert war erupted again, what it the next avenue to resolve the conflict? Mukadderat 14:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand, you should ask the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee to refer you to the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. JACOPLANE • 2007-09-5 15:02

The arbcom doesn't resolve content disputes. I think the best bet is to wait and see if another mediator can help us reach a compromise.--Sefringle^Talk 23:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected this page for a week given the ongoing edit-warring and in response to a request at WP:RFPP. Please work on the mediation and on the talk page; if a consensus is reached, unprotection before the week is up can be requested at WP:RFPP. If edit-warring resumes after the protection is expired, it may be re-protected for a longer period or there may be sanctions against individual editors who are edit-warring. MastCell ^Talk 16:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Inappropiate Image

This recently added image does not bleong in the lead of the article. No other prejudice article has a lead image. The image gives undue weight to certian views, and should be removed.--Sefringle^Talk 02:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Please explain which wiews get an undue weight. "No other" is invalid argument. Even if you are right, the image is immediately relevant and must not be deleted, but rather moved downtext. `'Míkka 02:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with editor Míkka . Padi 13:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It gives undue weight to the views of some far right extremists who probably aren't even notable, and is obvously added to prove a point, and to overlook the views of others presented in the article. I have also nominated the image for deletion, because it potentially is a copyright violation. Sefringle^Talk 02:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

As a lead image for the article on Islamophobia, it has to show an extremist view. A sane/neutral person wouldn't be relevant for an article on a term that refers to prejudice or discrimination against religious denomination. --Raphael1 02:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Show me the lead image on Anti-Christian prejudice or Antisemitism. The problem with that image is that it is not relevant. It is an image of some nobody, whom a name for doesn't exist. It is not a notable event, it didn't make the news, it isn't a notable image. We can't just add whatever images we want to articles. It has to be notable. And most importantly, there is no mention of the event or the person pictured within the context of the article. We don't even have a name for the guy. Sefringle^Talk 02:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems, that you are alone with your estimation, that the image is not relevant. Míkka considered it immediately relevant and I agree. We don't need the name of the guy, and we don't need the name of the "painter" of the New antisemitism lead image. --Raphael1 03:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with editor Raphael1. Padi 00:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The image does not give undo weight in the article, for the simple reason that the article deals with Islamophobia, an extremist viewpoint of irrational hatred and prejudice of those labeled as "Islamic". The photograph clearly shows this attitude in action in the real world. The only reason such a photograph would be kept out of this article, and there are no shortage of photographs like it to replace it, is for the explicit reason of detaching the notion of either Islamophobia or anti-Islamic sentiments from reality. That would defeat the purpose of the article, and be a POV violation.. Padi 00:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The picture is very relevant, as the article is on Islamophobia, and the man in the photograph is a self-proclaimed Islamophobe. Padi 13:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't make the image relevant. The context is important. The man in the image was known to be demonstrating primarily in support of US troops. Carrying a sign that says he's islamaphobic doesn't actually make him islamaphobic. It just makes him a protester, just as the third image down on this page doesn't necessarily show a group of American hating muslims celebrating after hearing of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The picture is also misleading because of the manipulation that it has undergone. --AussieLegend 14:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That is completely false. If he was a protester in support of the troops, he would simply hold up a sign saying "I support the troops". If he supported the war in Iraq at the protest, he would hold up a sign saying "I support the war in Iraq". If he held up a sign saying that he was against Islamic based terrorism, he would hold up a sign saying "I support the war against Islamic terrorism". Yet, he holds up a sign that proudly proclaims himself to be "Islamophobic". Ironically, this article is about Islamophobia. He is a self-proclaimed bigot by the American understanding of the term, and this article is about bigotry. You cannot find an image much more appropriate than that. In this case, a spade is just that, a spade. Padi 00:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

All of what you have said is simply assumption, not verifiable fact. --AussieLegend 10:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

New antisemitism has a lead image as well. --Raphael1 02:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

And notice it is an image of an actual antisemitic event, unlike your image, which is of a single individual. Sefringle^Talk 02:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The event is an anti-war rally, which is not antisemitic per se. But the poster is antisemitic and has probably been painted by a single indivudual as well. --Raphael1 02:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Notice the differnce between the two images. the New Antisemitism image has a date, a description, a source, and is of an entire group; three important characteristics this image doesn't have. Sefringle^Talk 03:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Gathering of eagles.jpg has a date, a description and a source. What group are you talking about? I can only see a painting. And yes, they are two different pictures. --Raphael1 03:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The original "islamophobic" image is (a) larger (b) has date (c) has event/place mentioned: Gathering of Eagles organization The latter has 613,000 google hits and probably deserves an article or at least a disambig page. `'Míkka 03:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Gathering of Eagles stubbed, and it is indeed of note, but not what is here. `'Míkka 03:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Gathering of Eagles organized a "pro-war" rally to disrupt the September 15, 2007 anti-war protest. (a) I croped the original image. (b) the date is 15.9.2007 (c) Washington D.C. You can find that info here. --Raphael1 03:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well actually, no it didn't according to this page. The rally was "pro-the people who are fighting the war" which is different. --AussieLegend 14:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah sure. Including the 3789 dead US soldiers? SCNR --Raphael1 14:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably but not being a member of that group I don't know. I must say, I'm not sure why that's even relevent or is that your true intentions showing through? Are you posting this image as an example of islamaphobia or as a protest against the war? --AussieLegend 17:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Selective image manipulation

I'd like to know why the image was not just cropped but rotated as well. The only reason I can see for the rotation is so that "DEFEAT" could be cropped from above "JIHAD" making it look like "DEFEAT" had never been there at all. This can give the image a different meaning to what was originally displayed. --AussieLegend 11:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I second that. Alexwoods 12:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That was not my intention. I rotated it, because the original is leaning a bit (I have a weakness for that). I don't think, that anyone would assume, he is propagating jihad. --Raphael1 13:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest you avoid altering the image at all. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is that? Because someone might assume he is propagating jihad? IMHO this is absurd. Especially since the sticker seems to originate from Robert Spencers jihadwatch.org. --Raphael1 14:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No, because when you manipulate images the way that you did, somebody might suspect your intentions to be less than pure, probably in much the same way that people may have misinterpreted this man's intentions. --AussieLegend 14:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Your wish is my command. Now its leaning a bit, but DEFEAT can be recognized. --Raphael1 14:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Image caption

Please note: This section follows on from the above discussion but has been moved here to avoid formatting problems and excessive indenting

That's better but the image still isn't necessary and adds nothing to the article. As it is it's just an image that has been slapped on a page as filler. It needs a caption that links it to the article. The current caption points it to another article. I suggest you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Captions --AussieLegend 17:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

O.K. I changed it to provide context. Is there anything else I can help you with? --Raphael1 23:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you still didn't achieve what you were aiming for. You can see in the image that he's claiming to be islamaphobic. You don't need the caption to confirm that. The caption needs to provide a link to the article and it still doesn't. Here's an analogy. If I throw on a t-shirt with a slogan on it that reads "I fish and I vote" and then get somebody to take my photo is it appropriate to place that image in the article on fishing with the caption "Person claiming to be fisherman"? No it isn't since it adds nothing to the article because wearing a t-shirt with a slogan doesn't demonstrate fishing. If, on the other hand, I sat down on the shoreline and actually started fishing that picture would be appropriate because it actually shows fishing. You have the same problem with your image. A sign alone doesn't demonstrate islamaphobia. You need something that demonstrates islamaphobia. Somebody cowering before a muslim or beating up a muslim would demonstrate it. Even a crowd of protestors carrying signs with slogans along the lines of "down with islam" or "muslims go home" would be appropriate. A single protestor carrying a sign, even though he's yelling, isn't appropriate. --AussieLegend 00:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article isn't about anything concrete as "fishing" or "beating up muslims". It discusses a hostility or prejudice. Somebody beating a Muslim could (but not necessarily has to) be an example of Islamophobia. It could as well be an ordinary robbery. Somebody publicly declaring to be islamophobic, is indeed a better picture for this article. I'm sorry, that I don't have a crowd of protestors (actually I'm happy, that there aren't that many), but why would a single protestor not be appropriate? --Raphael1 02:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If the article is about hostility or prejudice then the image needs to display that. All it displays is a man holding a sign and apparently yelling at someone or something. That isn't good enough. If you could see him yelling at a muslim then that might be OK. You can't just make it fit by tacking on a caption that suits what you want to convey. --AussieLegend 03:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Why would he need to yell at a Muslim? He could even be islamophobic alone as well. It is difficult to display something abstract as hostility or prejudice. A man holding a sign saying "I am proud of being islamophobic" is as close as we can get.--Raphael1 04:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "link to the article": I'd like to use it as a lead image. I'm following the Islamophobia article now for almost 2 years, and it seems to me, that some editors deny any existence of hostility towards Muslims. This image in the lead could change that. --Raphael1 02:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your point; i.e to push a POV on wikipedia. Based on that alone, the image should be removed for violating NPOV. Sefringle^Talk 03:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Clearly you are aiming for an emotive response and that's not what you should be aiming for. The opening image needs to be directly relevant and this image's relevance is tenuous at best. --AussieLegend 03:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I do neither wish to push a POV (which one?) nor do I aim for an emotive response. I just want, that our readers can see a man who seems proud of being islamophobic. Nothing else. --Raphael1 04:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Who are you kidding? You are putting the image in the lead to attempt to make the arguements that Islamophobia doesn't exist invalid, as most of the critical views of the term are in the lead. Pure POV there. Besides, the relevance is very trivial. Show me a reliable source that proves this picture wasn't faked. The original source of the picture is not a reliable source at all. Anyone can wear a silly costume and hold up a protest sign, and it is all a big joke. How am I supposed to know he actually believes what he says, and this isn't some joke image, which could easily be argued. That is the problem with this image, besides the fact that it is of nobody notable and there is no evidence that this guy actually is a member of Gathering of Eagles or that he attended a counter protest. Sefringle^Talk 04:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That Islamophobia doesn't exist at all, isn't an argument. It's an assertion, that some people will agree with, no matter what picture they see. Just as people, who saw pictures of the moonlanding, still claim it never happened. --Raphael1 17:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What are you, talking about? That didn't, make sense. The picture, doesn't prove anything relating to, Islamophobia's existence or non-existence, and is not representative of the topic of the article. It should, go. Alexwoods 18:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it proves, that there is at least one man, who is not shy of publicly declaring his Islamophobia. --Raphael1 18:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it even, proves that, per the, comments, above. It proves that he, was standing in front of the, sign. What exactly do you, think that it adds, to the article? Alexwoods 19:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes he might accidentally and unconsciously hold that sign ignorant of its content, but what are the odds? --Raphael1 21:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Even he is "accidentally" holds it (like, the real owner gone to take a leak), someone had made it and hardly accidentally at that. Just don't start telling here that the artist might be "ignorant of its content" as well. `'Míkka 16:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless it is a practical joke, which I suspect it may be. Suppose the guy is blind? Suppose he (or his buddies) thinks it is funny to pretend to be an islamophobe, or his buddies get him drunk to hold up the sign to make a joke? These are all possabilities, in which case the caption would be incorrect, and the inclusion of the image would be inappropiate. Yahel Guhan 03:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if he just pretended to be an islamophobe, the image caption ("A protester at a counter-demonstration against the September 15, 2007 anti-war protest in Washington, D.C.") would be correct and the inclusion of the image is still appropriate as well.--Raphael1 18:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

He also is probably blind. Just look how he is smiling completely oblivious to his surroundings. It would be very inappropiate to include a joke image like this one. What building is that in the background anyway? His house? Could be a backdrop. Fake pictures of non-notable people don't belong in wikipedia.Yahel Guhan 01:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

He is blind and wearing a camera around his neck? The building in the background is the United States Department of Justice you can see here. --Raphael1 20:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Suppose he is holding the camera for a friend, or it was painted in the picture. Ever heard of Photo manipulation? Yahel Guhan 21:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, I note that the wikilink has been pointed back to Gathering of Eagles. This is an aviation event so the link you've used is inappropriate too. --AussieLegend 00:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed that. --Raphael1 02:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the references recently attached to the image: Neither supported claims that the man in the image was associated with the Gathering of Eagles organisation or interfering with the protest. Nor do they identify him as being at a counter-demonstration. The original image is titled "Right Wing" with the filename gathering_of_eagles.jpg. You can't just make up a caption. You have to base it on something that is verifiable and the only verifiable data is what you have on the original page. That's the problem you have using an image that isn't your original work. --AussieLegend 04:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who considers the image to be a staged photo op by Indymedia DC, might want to look at http://flickr.com/photos/sandalphon/sets/72157602045144647/ There you can see the same guy at the same event. --Raphael1 12:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If you watch carefully, you can see him http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEh7C9BEv6s (the sign at 3:49, the guy at 3:57) --Raphael1 14:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't proven it isn't fake, besides, this version looks really similar to the original version; probably because it is copywritten from here with slight photo editing. [12] Yahel Guhan 01:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

References need to be cleaned up for formatting so other editors can use them

Hi, It may be limited to the few few references but the first one I looked at was actually a handful bundled as one which seems wrong. Each one should be sourced and cited even if that means several are listed in a row for a single assertion. Benjiboi 03:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Title

Why isn't this article named after the same conventions as all the other religious articles of similar content? eg.

• Anti-Christian discrimination
• Anti-Catholicism
• Anticlericalism
• Anti-Protestantism
• Anti-Mormonism
• Anti-Semitism

Perhaps it should be moved to something like "anti-Islamism" ? Rune X2 10:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Because that si covered by Persecution of Muslims and/or Criticism of Islam. Compare with antisemitism and anti-Judaism. // Liftarn

Prehaps Prejudice against muslims would be a better title. Yahel Guhan 01:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Islamophobia is a notable neologism, representing the equivalent of the above. ITAQALLAH 12:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree. This article is about the neologism. → AA ^(talk) — 12:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Controversial->criticized

I replaced the word "controversial" in the intro to fend off attacks of policy purists who require a citiation which defines islamophobia as "controversial". I don't have time to find this citation, but there are plenty of them which say that "the term islamophobia is criticized" (and I aded the most solid one, from a United Nations forum ). If anyone knows or finds a quote that explicitely says that the term is controversial or causes controversies, please add the word, with citation. Clearly, there is a controversy and clearly that some wikipeditors are striving hardly to sweep in under the carpet, therefore we are forces to proceed formally. `'Míkka 16:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticized isn't appropiate because it is too narrow in scope. The term is controversial not just because of the criticism, but also because there is controversy in the definitions, and in whether or not the concept exists or not. Please comment in the mediation (see above template link). Yahel Guhan 04:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

this is a topic which has been discussed extensively in the ongoing mediation (Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Islamophobia#Arbitrary_section_break_1), where i have proposed "Islamophobia is a neologism defined as prejudice or discrimination against Muslims or Islam." as the opening sentence of the article. that doesn't stop us from discussing controversy in the lead, it just isn't as broad as has been made out (especially in the light of counter evidence indicating widespread acceptance) and doesn't include the definition of Islamophobia in its scope. further thoughts or arguments would be welcome on the mediation page.

Yahel, if you believe there is any controversy in how Islamophobia has been defined, then please provide the evidence - as you know, i have been requesting it for quite a while now. ITAQALLAH 10:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

As a party included in mediation, I agree with this change, since "criticized" implies the existence of controversy, i.e., debate. Clear indication at debate was my main insistence, regasrdless what word/synonym is used. Mukadderat 06:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

FACTUAL CORRECTIONS

Sorry to be dull but what about boring factual corrections? Article says first use of term in US was Insight in 1991 but Associated Press used it in 1990 in a similar context in an article called Part II: Islam Resurgent Vibrant Faith of Koran Surviving Dying Faith of Communism The Associated Press - 23/07/1990 You need Factiva or similar archive access to find it. Context was "Stanislav Prozorov, head of an Islamic studies group in the Soviet Academy of Sciences, faults Soviet leaders for misreading Moslems, ignoring them on one hand and overreacting on the other. Recently, he told the daily paper Komsomolets Uzbekistana he saw a definite danger of an "Islamic explosion" because of "Islamophobia" on the part of Soviet leaders and thinkers." 132.185.240.120 16:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

that's very interesting. the source for the previous assertion was the Encyclopedia of Race and Ethnic studies (Routledge). i'll try to check up on that AP article. ITAQALLAH 10:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"The first documented use" is a very dubious phrasing; it is simply non-falsifiable: did anyone really scrutinized two hundreds plus years of books and newspapers? I don't believe so. The text is corrected into "An early documented use" Mukadderat 17:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

whatever the case, your change was an improvement. ITAQALLAH 12:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Image

What encyclopedic purpose does it serve? Why was it included? Arrow740 02:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Where did you see photos with "encyclopedic purpose"? Wikipedia articles do not rely on photos to describe things. Photos are for "illustrative purpose". United Nations artricle contains a photo of a bear; very enclopedic and enlighthening, you think? The image in question contains the word "islamophb" and illustrates the topic. If you have a better illustration, you are very welcome. Mukadderat 06:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see the above section about the minipulation of the unencyclopediac image. Images have to be of something notable to be worthy of inclusion in wikipedia articles, a characteristic this image fails drasticly. Yahel Guhan 04:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is notable. It displays men from notable right-wing organization spreading their wings all over the US as a prairy fire, and these men declare themselves openly islamphobes. Besides, the argument of notability is moot for illustrative images for huge concepts. For example, please prove me that the topmost picture Mississippi River is extremely notable and somehow delivers the intrinsic image of the river. No I bet my beard that the photo is included first because it is free and secoind because it is nice pic. Mukadderat 05:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the guys name? Wikipedia's standard for notability is an article about the subject. Where is the article on wikipedia about the person (or people) in the picture allegedly declaring themselves "islamophobes"? Yahel Guhan 05:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Funny. There are plenty of photos of mobs and crowds in wikipedia. Tell me what is the ship in the Mississippi River, right in the centre. And where is a wikipedia article about it, or I will go at once and delete this photo. The photo illsutrates not this guy, but the spread islamophobia among people we even don't know who they are. Mukadderat 05:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The image in that photo illistrates the Mississippi River, not the ship. I suggest you don't delete the image. That would be WP:POINT. The image we are talking about illistrates some nobody allegedly holding up a cardboard sign which says "islamophobic and prowd of it." It doesn't show any "spread" of islamophobia, as it is one person who is either an islamophobe, pretending to be an islamophobe,, or an innocant blind man who is holding a sign and doesn't know the content of it while his friends are pulling a prank on him; it isn't an image of a large notable group of islamophobes; it is one person who is unnamed and unknown. Prehaps the image would fit better in the practical joke article, because it is just as likely that the image is just that as it is that the image is real, especially since we know nothing about this non-notable guy (including the person's name). Yahel Guhan 05:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"I suggest you don't delete the image" of course not. it was not WP:POINT, it was simply point. The photo in question illustrates presence of islamophobia, not the guy in the photo. Even if it is a practical joke as you suggests, it still shows that the concept is notable enough to make a joke of it. But there are seriosu doubt that the person is blind or it is a joke. To draw such a nice and professional sign requires some serious intention than a couple of laughs. Please notice is is not simply spray-painted grafitti: it is quite professional. Mukadderat 06:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, take a look here. Recognize anything? I guess this "practical joke" is more widespread than you think.Mukadderat 06:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

...and here , and [13] here too]. Mukadderat 06:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

6,90 euros, thats cheep. Could easily be a practical joke. The only thing the buttons prove is that they are buttons. OK, maybe there are a couple places the joke is spread to. A guy holding a sign does not prove the spread/existance of islamophobia. That is the whole purpose of the practical joke analogy. The photo just shows a guy holding a sign, and that guy is not notable, so the picture of a guy holding a sign is not notable or worthwhile of inclusion within an encyclopediac article. Yahel Guhan 06:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Not a joke. Mukadderat 06:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. Yahel Guhan 04:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You said it all with this: "It displays men from notable right-wing organization spreading their wings all over the US as a prairy fire, and these men declare themselves openly islamphobes." You are trying to make a WP:POINT about "Islamophobes." Arrow740 06:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

re You are trying to make a WP:POINT about "Islamophobes." Please explain what you wanted to say. I understand you intended to say I am doing sometning wrong. Please explain why making a point in an article talk page is wrong. Mukadderat 22:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The image is notable and should be included. Preferably the image should be in the top right hand corner of the page, like they're supposed to be.Bless sins 06:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I have asked many to give some proof of notability; nobody has provided any. They have only offered fringe websites (not reliable sources) which seem to be misrepresenting the joke image to make a point.Yahel Guhan 04:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

what has notability got to do with content issues? speculating fantastical stories about how the man in question must be blind or doing it as a joke is unverifiable and of no relevance to a source-based discussion. perhaps a source noting the presence of Islamophobic sentiment at the gathering will nip this in the bud? ITAQALLAH 12:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

exactly. And the fantastical stories about how this man actually is an alleged islamophobe and is not doing it as a joke or is not blind is also unverifiable by reliable sources. There are no reliable sources which contain this image or present it as a notable or reliable or accurate example of islamophobia. Yahel Guhan 17:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yahel Guhan, you said that The American Muslim (quoting from qantara.de) is not a reliable source. Can you tell me how Robert Spencer, Oliver Kamm, David Green and Salman Rushdie are reliable sources?Bless sins 03:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant. You can't provide a reliable source, so you resort to tricks challanging other material. Yahel Guhan 03:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm if "Robert Spencer, Oliver Kamm, David Green and Salman Rushdie" are "irrelevant", then perhaps we should remove them? If they relevant, then you need to justify how they are reliable sources, given your judgement of TAM and Qantara as unreliable.Bless sins 14:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That is what WP:RS/N is for. If you want to question other sources, take it there. Yahel Guhan 20:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Raphel1, do you have a reason for restarting of the edit war? Have you found a reliable source to prove the image notable and reliable for Islamophobia? Yahel Guhan 20:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think, that I'd need to disprove your outlandish claim, that this guy might be blind? --Raphael1 20:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Outlandish? Hardly. What I am asking for is reliable sources that prove it is islamophobic and notable (so far you and nobody else have provided none). Look at the images in Antisemitism. All are historic images, published in reliable sources, and all are well sourced; none of which are characteristics this image has.Yahel Guhan 20:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

any response? Yahel Guhan 21:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

What about the new antisemitism image coming from zombietime.com? Is that any more reliable than this guy's picture, which appears on two different websites? --Raphael1 21:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you overlook the footnote at the end of the caption linking it to 5 other websites? Still, if you have a problem with that picture, discuss it there, not here.Yahel Guhan 22:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Tone down Kenon's voice....not a balanced intro

Hi all,

A tertiary search of the term Islamophobia and the social science research which confronts and analyzes it (both as a concept and social phenomenon) presents overwhelming evidence indicating that it is not a ‘myth’ and that Kenon’s critique should not be given so much weight (clearly dominating the introductory section).

I suggest that the critique of Islamophobia as a concept should be given a section of its own and that the introduction should not be so biased towards Kenon’s views.

The topic is of course controversial. That should still be mentioned. However, spotlighting one specific critique so early in the post gives it far more weight then it actually merits in the scholarly archives...and indeed in 'reality'. Wikipedia is not supposed to be used to shift 'thinking' in any direction. It is suppsed to present a snap shot of what 'thinking' is at the time of reading.;-)

Please consider balancing the introduction by toning down this aspect.

Thank you.

Tanner —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantero (talk • contribs) 08:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

good advice. the article currently attempts to overstate the criticism and controversy surrounding what is a widely accepted (globally and in sociological circles) term. efforts are currently being made to resolve these issues in formal mediation, which is linked to above. ITAQALLAH 10:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People

In an interview Jack Shaheen stated, that Arab humanity is absent in Hollywood movies and "Islamophobia now is a part of our psyche". IMHO his movie is notable for this article. --Raphael1 16:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Arabism may be the best place for this, but a brief mention here too may be relevant. ITAQALLAH 16:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin edit needed, minor

{{editprotected}} Please fix the link for Keith Ellison so that it does not go to the "Keith Ellison" disambiguation page, but the "Keith Ellison (politician)" page. Part of the repair of Disambiguation pages with links project. Thank you Keeper | 76 19:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing it out. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 06:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

FA disambig

{{editprotected}} Please change [[FA]] to [[the Football Association|FA]] Achangeisasgoodasa 23:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, please add {{Islam topics|state=collapsed}} to the bottom of the page. Yahel Guhan 01:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Category request

{{editprotected}} Please also include [[Category:Islamophobia| ]] at the bottom of the page. ITAQALLAH 19:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

There is fat chance that Category:Islamophobia is about to be deleted. May wait for 5 days IMO. `'Míkka 00:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

seems like a bad faith cagegory creation. If it survives the cfd, then it may be included, but not now. Yahel Guhan 06:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion for this category deletion can be found here - Categories For Discussion - Islamophobia. Atari400 19:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is no longer protected; no need for admin help. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

mediation

those currently involved in mediation discussions may which to comment on the new criticism section that has been proposed here, which incorporates a number of the ideas we discussed earlier. ITAQALLAH 18:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

the proposal and request for input has been up for over two weeks. i assume nobody has any issues with the rewrite. if you do, please comment in the section linked to above and offer feedback- i would prefer they be articulated now instead of later (when the changes are made) as a pretext for edit warring. ITAQALLAH 13:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

as there doesn't seem to be any issues raised with the rewrite, i shall implement it accordingly. ITAQALLAH 18:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

widespread acceptance

as provided in the mediation discussion:

• "In recent years, the phenomenon of Islamophobia (see World in focus below) has become recognized as one of the clearest expressions of racial intolerance in a different and growing form", "Islamophobia has become a widely used term and a major form of racial intolerance." (Sociology: Making Sense of Society - p. 315, 2005)
• "The next step in the development towards an official acceptance of the concept and phenomenon of 'Islamophobia' occured in January 2001, when expressions of Islamophobia were officially accepted as signs of intolerance, in line with racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia, by the Stockholm International Forum on Combating Intolerance. Many governments had previously hesitated to link Islamophobia with other forms of intolerance. As a result of this forum's declaration one can expect the concept 'Islamophobia' will have a greater impact on the international arena in the near future." (New Muslims in the European Context: The Experience of Scandinavian Converts - p. 53, Brill 2004)
• "The Runnymede Trust has been successful in that the term Islamophobia is now widely recognized and used, though many right-wing commentators either reject its existence or argue that it is justified." (Encyclopedia of Race and Ethnic studies p. 218, Routledge 2003)

also official recognition by the EU,[14] the UN,[15] mainstream media,[16], many governments (primarily the UK) - see above, as well as scholarly academic sources (see Islamophobia#References for a sample of reliable sources which discuss Islamophobia as a matter of sociological study). i think all of this is sufficient for us to keep the lead neutral and tidy: "Islamophobia is a term that refers to prejudice or discrimination against Islam or Muslims." ITAQALLAH 22:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

um no. there are plenty of sources which beliece the term is controversial. Yahel Guhan 03:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Plenty of sources that are un-academic and quite controversial themselves. Itaqallah has provided us with reliable and academic sources.Bless sins 04:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

which sources, and how are they "un-academic"? Yahel Guhan 04:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert Spencer for example. He is a controversial source, and is not an academic source. How? Let me tell you how Itaqallah's sources are academic: one of his sources is published by Brill Publishers which is an academic publishing group. Another of his sources in an encyclopedia. Your sources, on the other hand, are sources that seek to push a particular POV, and are not based on research by academics (including professors).Bless sins 04:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

i don't think opposition from a sample of sources (mainly partisan) even registers in comparison to unanimous acceptance by the EU, UN, and all of the diverse range of reliable sources listed above. neither you nor Beit Or had bothered to participate in mediation, where i had dismantled the tendentious exaggeration of controversy; nor have you been able to provide any reliable sources disproving the above verified assertions - instead, this fallacy is repeated ad nauseum. ITAQALLAH 20:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh contraire; I have participated in the mediation quite a bit by now. There is nothing wrong with mentioning the concept is controversial in the first sentence; not doing so is censorship and POV pushing. Yahel Guhan 23:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You are again abusing the definition of censorship. We can take this to WP:NOT again, where you will again find that consensus is against you. I have no problem with that. I note that you haven't responded to my arguments about the sources bieng academic and reliable.Bless sins 02:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that is why we are currently having a mediation. This arguement has been said before; it doesn't change the fact that it still is POV. Yahel Guhan 02:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

the discussion about the opening sentence had concluded. the argument is a poor one, Sefringle, and has already been responded to (if you have a new argument, you are more than welcome to open a new mediation thread). nothing is controversial about the definition of Islamophobia. it is mainly its application which is controversial (as with any epithet indicating discrimination), and i don't mind that being mentioned somewhere in the lead. i have provided three sources explicitly stating widespread acceptance (as well as a number of other academic sources discussing Islamophobia as fact), i have provided sources showing acceptance by the EU, UN, and international governments. i have provided sources showing widespread acceptance and usage in mainstream media. where is your evidence that the definition of Islamophobia is disputed? where is your evidence that all of the above reliable sources are wrong and there is no widespread acceptance? ITAQALLAH 12:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

i would like for this discussion to be picked up again, in actively preventing another edit war from ensuing. i have provided the above sources demonstrating official, academic and international acceptance of a valid issue. as the opposition is a relative minority, i don't think it requires overstatement. ITAQALLAH 19:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins POV pushing edits

bless sins, you have no consensus to change the subheaders; all of your recent edits are labeling alleged incidents and people as "islamophobes" when they may not actually be. Yahel Guhan 04:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not labeling them. Only saying that their views are considered as Islamophobic. "when they may not actually be" The same can be said about people considered antisemitic. We present the allegations nonetheless, and attribute them properly.Bless sins 04:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

considered implies certianty. Alleged implies doubt. Since you agree they are allegations, why do you have such a problem with calling them jsut that? Yahel Guhan 04:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Consider implies to "look upon something as". And the sources do that. It doesn't imply if a view is correct.Bless sins 04:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It most certianly does. "Views looked upon as Islamophobic" means the views are islamophobic. Views alleged to be islamophobic means they are that way in the minds of the speaker. Yahel Guhan 04:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

this is a topic under mediation (please open a thread there if you wish to discuss further). it was identified that in some cases "alleged" may have been overused, thus incorporating undue speculation. ITAQALLAH 22:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yahel Guhan, you need to go look up the definition of "consider". OT look upon something implies that someone is doing that, not that it is a fact.Bless sins (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

see also

Could this be posted in the "see other" section: Barack Obama Muslim rumor? Thanks. Redddogg (talk) 06:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

i think it deserves a mention there. ~atif ^Talk 07:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

When the edit freeze lifts

Could we improve "An Arab teenage is driven to suicide because of bullying. He failed at the sucide attempt. He plans on living a better life.[87]"? Mention that he lives in New York to give context, and fix that awful, nebulous final sentence.

The problem with this article

The main problem with this article, specificially the lead, is that it is an article written about islamophobes, for islamophobes by islamophobes. The article is basically 'criticism of the idea of islampophobia' and probably could be renamed as such without having to change anything, despite the fact a clear majority of editors have been trying to wade through the quagmire of bigotry here, upheld by users using sources which are un-academic at best and racist/highly ignorant at worst. Islamophobia DOES exist, I see no reason why it is 'controversial' and I cant see why this word has been left in the heading despite a clear consensus. If I get time I am going to hunt for some sources and try to un-POV this article (if it is not fully protected, which I havent seen if it is yet) myself, the consensus is clearly against the bigots and 'islamophbia dosent make any sense' guys in this talk page so I dotn see why the article has been left as unablanced as it is.Anti-BS Squad (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)