Talk:Islamophobia

European Islamophobia Report (EIR)

Whole day long I'm trying to maintain edit concerning EIR, substantiated with proper referencing to reliable sources.

This latest report was presented at European Union parliament on May 6. this year, and was product of work of several dozen prominent intellectuals and academician, researchers and NGO activists from all over Europe. It's here to stay, as relevant, reliable and legitimate entry - if it's relevant and legitimate for European Parliament it must be for English Wikipedia - unless someone can wondrously prove otherwise, which I doubt, however I understand massive resistance not only to my edit, but to entire article, all the time.--Santasa99 (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why ppl are referring it as npov, but it is much too large of coverage. I don't think we need it in the lead or have a very large quote. Just a paragraph about its definitions is fine. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Then propose alternative, make it shorter, don't remove it, for Christ sake !--Santasa99 (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

And no, not people, just two passers-by, one of which appears to be troll with multiple warnings on his talk page, on which he never responded.--Santasa99 (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Look, it's such important issue that, actually, makes one of the most important entries in this article. It's report presented in front of European Parliament, for Christ sake, what's more relevant and important then that ?!

Actually, it deserves stand-alone article of its own. I mean, organization deserves its own article. They assemble very large number of intellectuals and academicians from around EU and Europe. They are not some fringe organizations, they are involved with EU government, which, I suppose, can't be more relevant place to work with, on any issue, and on human rights in particular.

This Report is and will be at the pinnacle in the fight against Islamophobia through EU governmental apparatus, and to say it's a minor thing is belittling, to say the least.--Santasa99 (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Chill. There's no deadline here and stop casting aspersions. This needs discussion and consensus at this point, so we're gonna need some other voices here.

The issue I have that there's WP:UNDUE weight on this one topic, bordering on WP:COATRACK. This topic is about Islamophobia, not the EIR. We can and should mention their opinion, but not in 5000 bits worth of it. For reference, this is the edit in question. I say keep the external link and make a European Islamophobia Report section, but not with the tons of fluff it had. Just something like the following:

In 2016, the European Islamophobia Report (EIR) presented the "European Islamophobia Report 2015" at European Parliament which analyzes the "trends in the spread of Islamophobia" in 25 European states in 2015. The EIR considers anti-Muslim racism. The conclude that criticism of Muslims or Islam is not necessarily Islamophobic, but that Islamophobia is the dominant group scapegoating and excluding Muslims for the sake of power.

There's my 2 cents. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

References

"I say keep the external link and make a European Islamophobia Report section, but not with the tons of fluff it had. Just something like the following:..."

OK, but lets discuss it further tomorrow, and attune edit with most relevant information.--Santasa99 (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how this is any separate from inclusion of a big section on the Runnymede Trust report. IMO it might be appropriate to condense both these reports down into the definition section or debate about the definition section. I don't think any single report should have a whole section under Etymology. --Tow (talk) 02:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd be fine with combining things. I think this is a great source we can use to bolster the definition of Islamophobia vis-a-vis racism and Islam. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it warrants separate subsection under Etymology or new section where we can provide information on relevant organizations, not for report itself. It should exist such (sub)section which will give condense explanation on what/who the source/organization is, why is relevant, and then separate paragraph under "Reports" (sub)section, which will give reader summarized info on their research and/or report itself.

I already explained my position, but for editor "Tow" I will reiterate it: if the EIR report is good enough for EU parliament, as quite relevant, reliable, and legitimate, then it must be relevant for wikipedia article on Islamophobia.

I can see how huge is the section which tries to provide counterarguments for the phenomenon of Islamophobia itself, yet one meet such a challenge when tries to provide entry on truly important organization and its research, which happened to be the most important act authored and presented at European Union institutions since 2006 and EUMC report "Muslims in the European Union: Discrimination and Islamophobia".

So, don't mind if I have my doubts on some editors motives and reasons. Article is already poorly conceived, and informations are really scarce, not to mention constantly challenged by editors who want it removed completely.

Extent of the problem of Islamophobia, and especially actions in combating phenomenon are underrepresented in the article - for pity's sake, this article completely omitted some of the most important documents and act of countering Islamophobia in Europe, such as main EU institutions like OSCE's "Guidelines for Educators on Countering Intolerance and Discrimination against Muslims", the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights research and reports, etc.

However, I don't mean that article should be buried with informations on every single organization and every single report, but these major governmental organizations, as well as those non-governmental engaged with EU institution (or other western states, respectively), should have been mentioned, briefly explained, and their most relevant and actual research and reports noted.--Santasa99 (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the constant pushing of the obscene comparison to antisemitism, which is highly politically charged. It's especially offensive to European Jews who are "Islamophobic" about muslim antisemitism. --Monochrome_Monitor 16:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

It was obviously a conscious decision to mention three otherwise unnotable people, two politicians and one obscure proffessor of islamic studies, for their "Muslims are the new Jews" crap. Comparisons to religious antisemitism are one thing, but the comparisons to racial antisemitism and nazism are fringe, limited to the far-left (who have their own problem with Jews). --Monochrome_Monitor 16:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, everything that you mentioned is your personal problem, which doesn't influence editing English Wikipedia. You can file complaint to your national ombudsman, near place where you live, if you feel threatened in any obvious way.

As far as edit is concerned, I can draw a conclusion that, except been reverted, none of the editors, apart from "EvergreenFir", have suggested alternative. I will make an entry with respect to "EvergreenFir" proposition in the next 24 hours.--Santasa99 (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Not a phobia

Shouldn't it be noted that the term phobia has nothing to do with what is described in the articel?Dislike is not a phobia which is:"An extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something" The dislike of a religion based on the teachings and the doings of practioners of said religion is not irrational.It is in fact very rational and based on facts. 47.71.72.89 (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death (see the archives) and already discussed in the article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

This is also no different than Xenophobia or Homophobia.--67.68.163.254 (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

You are using an etymological fallacy. Turkeys don't actually come from Turkey, but they are called turkeys in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

a person using the word turkey to describe a bird or its meat is obviously not implying it comes from Turkey though, and this is commonly understood! but a person using the word 'islamophobia' is certainly trying to mean that it is a 'phobia' i.e an irrational fear when the fear of Islam, considering its teaches, is entirely rational — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.112.144.10 (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Wrong. The term turkey implied that the bird came from Turkey. You and I both know it did not, but you are not arguing to change the name of the article about turkeys. Also, you do not believe that islamophobia means "a 'phobia' i.e an irrational fear," so you are on the same plain as not being confused that a turkey comes from Turkey. TFD (talk) 07:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Wrong for a different reason than TFD. The hatred of Islam is not rational, 82.112 is just a bigot. --Jayron32 03:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Bigot may be a strong word. A position may be "rationally" arrived at (i.e., reached through some sort of reasoning) and yet not be morally/ethically justified.

Regardless, anon is making a highly intuitive argument that is none-the-less irrelevant. If prejudice against Muslims/Islam was called "moderately-fuzzy-penguin-tossing" by a majority of sources, then that's what the article should be named. As it happens, islamaphobia fits the bill. TimothyJosephWood 13:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Dislike of Islam is not irrational. Explain away ISIS and the Taliban, I dare you.CatGrass (talk) 10:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Uhh...If I recall correctly, in the US you are something like 30 times more likely to die of a fire you set in your own kitchen than you are to die of a terrorist attack. Also Islam is not synonymous with ISIS/Taliban. TimothyJosephWood 12:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

How likely is the fire to be set up to kill you? Compare arson with terror attacks, then come back, OK? But, I did commit guilt by association fallacy, my apologies. CatGrass (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

We already have an article on Criticism of Islam, covering various controversial aspects of the religion and providing various perspectives. Its not the most comprehensive article, but avoids associating the entire history of Islam with just the most recent expressions of Islamism. Frankly, there is a difference between rational criticism and/or distrust of Islam and the outright demonization of its adherents. Dimadick (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits (May 31)

So Xenophrenic has made a blanket revert here with a misleading edit summary where he/she disingenuously inserted uncited weasel words such as "widely criticized", and adding his/her POV: "should be considered problematic". Other changes include modifying "Although the term is widely recognized and used" into "Although the Runnymede Trust has been successful in making the term widely recognized".

Clearly, Xenophrenic, (Personal attack removed) has a problem with this established term. Xenophrenic, you may want to explain your concerns here instead of editing disingenuously? Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Al-Andalusi. I'd like to request that you not personally attack your fellow editors. Thanks.

To address your three concerns: (1) My edit isn't a "blanket revert" (whatever that is), perhaps you should look more closely at it, and the edit summary is fine. (2) The "widely criticized" wording has a citation at the end of the sentence. Please read the many criticisms therein, and explain to me why you feel the wording is not supported, or is in any way more "weasely" than the other dozen instances of that wording in the article. (3) The "should be considered problematic" wording is right from the cited source (see: "should not be considered unproblematic"). I'm interested in how you concluded that was my POV, and not that of the cited source. (4) As for adding "the Runnymede Trust" to the first sentence of that paragraph, that, too, was from the cited source. So please explain here what your concern is with that wording. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Undoing multiple edits of an editor in one edit without explanation is blanket reverting. Adding a bit more changes to the mix and not writing "undo/revert" in the edit summary does not change the fact that a series of edits were reverted precisely because "you don't like it". Not to mention, you were using an edit summary that does not accurately describe the changes to the content. The wording "widely criticized" is not backed by the cited reference (and I pointed out in the very beginning that it is uncited). The usage "should be considered problematic" is highly POV. Do not insert your opinions here. All academic sources indicate that "Islamophobia" is an established term and now a reality. Academic debate revolves around understandings of the term and ways to define it better so as to help address the issue. Certainly, this fruitful discussion takes precedence over the views of characters such as Ed Husain, Rushdie, Hitchens and others who maintain that hatred against Muslims does not exist. By moving the academic discussion down to the bottom of the section, and placing the views of right-wing nuts at the top, the section is no longer quite balanced. Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Just throwing in my 2¢.

• Both versions under criticism are bad. Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, "many right wing" should be removed, and replaced with the individuals who are doing the rejecting. Similarly, per WP:TERRORIST, the term "right wing" should not be used period, unless in the specific case that the people described as such are cited, and the person describing them as such is also cited.
• "Should be considered problematic" is POV par excellence and should be removed unless it is directly attributed to a source (i.e., It should be quoted and not said in WP's voice. This doesn't mean said in WP's voice and then quoted in a footnote 99% of people are not going to read.)
• I'm not going to take the time to read into the other page and a half of changes, which leads to the following::
  • Don't do large reversions unless it is general copy/editing or something similar unlikely to be controversial. Make peace meal revisions that can be individually justified in edit summaries.
  • Don't do them on contentious articles at all. Instead seek consensus on talk.
• Calling someone a right winger is a personal attack. Stop it. Talk about edits not editors. Similarly, don't use a section header to talk about a person, when the issue is with an edit. TimothyJosephWood 21:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Calling someone right-wing isn't an insult, it's more of a dismissal, that shouldn't be a dismissal. It's like calling someone a feminist in anti-feminist circles, a very-low brow tactic. CatGrass (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• Technically, its neither an insult nor a dismissal. The terms Right-wing politics, Centrism, and Left-wing politics have uses in the political discourse of several countries and may be useful for groupings of political parties and movements based on common ideas, despite their imprecision. The problem is that they have also become terms of abuse by which the opposing side seeks to demonize their enemy. The so-called right-wingers may simply be supporters of classical liberalism but wrongly grouped together by their opponents with Fascists, Nazis, Neo-Nazis, racial supremacists, Ultra-royalists, and Fundamentalists who technically are also in the right wing of the political spectrum. The so-called left-wingers may simply be members of civil rights movements but wrongly grouped together by their opponents with Stalinists, Maoists, the Khmer Rouge, and left-wing terrorists who technically are also in the left-wing of the political spectrum. In general, the same term can be used with a positive, neutral, or negative connotation depending on who is using it and in what context. Dimadick (talk) 09:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Get real. When a tobacco farmer from Kentucky calls you a communist, they're not talking about the nuances of Marxism. When someone disagrees with your edit and calls you a right winger on talk, they're not trying to have an enlightened political discussion. TimothyJosephWood 10:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Islamophobia

Note that Category:Islamophobia is being considered for deletion: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 July 12#Category:Islamophobia. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

This article is fundamentally wrong

JG Estiot (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

This article is fundamentally wrong and should be suspended, deleted or reviewed as it exaggerates the definition of Islamophobia taken from the Oxford Dictionary. The actual definition is "Dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force". This article does not accept the dictionary definition of the term Islamophobia but instead seeks to redefine it by embellishing and distorting it for the purpose of making Islamophobia a negative and unacceptable state of human belief. It is perfectly legitimate to dislike Islam as it is an archaic religion that breaches most of today's human rights. Rather than acknowledge Islamophobia as a legitimate state for any human being, this article paints the term negatively by lumping it with racism, something that has nothing to do with the dislike of Islam because Islam is not a race. There are White, Asian, Black and mixed-race people around the world who are Muslims.