This is an archive of past discussions about Islamophobia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
"On 21 November 2006, six imams were forcefully removed from a US Airways flight at Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport on suspicions of terrorism. The event led to an outcry from Muslim organizations in America saying that what happened showed the growing prejudice against Muslims in America.[108] Details of the accusations made against the imams can be found in the official police report on the incident (currently exclusively hosted here), which includes written witness testimony of the imams' extremely suspicious activity, such as praising terrorism, praying unnecessarily loudly, asking for seat-belt extensions that were obviously not needed (then putting said extensions under their seats), not sitting in their assigned seats (having someone near each exit in a pattern shared by hijackers of the past), and getting up to move around and confer with each other repeatedly"
That section is not true and contains a link to a website that makes false unsubstantiated claims. They claim that only they have access to the official police reports (obviously not true) and they claim to have interviewed a passenger from the plane without giving any information as to who the passenger is or how they came to interview her. Their way around this is to claim that she needs her name protected for her own safety (again already showing their bias). This is no different then me making false claims on the Catholic or Jewish page and linking websites with a racist undertone.
This article is biased
Why the use of the word 'alledged' before examples of islamophobia. Are you trying to suggest that the claims are false? If you were Muslim you would know that islamophobia exists. I think you should remove alledged it doesn't happen on other articles about Racism.
Removed Ziauddin Sardar quotes from this section his article is an editorial not a statement of fact. Only relevant info might be political parties on the far right that are islamaphobic. If these parties are not insignificant and there views are relevant to the article then surely there is some primary source material out there eg quotes from party leaders etc. We shouldn't rely on it being fact because some guy wrote it in his opinion piece.Ferdie3313:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Country-specific polls and surveys - Australia
I have removed Australia from this section for the following reasons:
Sunday Herald Sun survey had a very small data sample (580) no details on the survey are supplied at all eg specific questions etc. The current reference to the survey is comments in the Green Left Weekly publication which obviously form its name alone should convince that they are pushing a POV.
I have located the UNSW survey here [[1]]. It is comprised of a sample of 1300 people. Whilst obviously a more worthy example than the previous survey I believe that more than one survey is required before attempting to push a POV that Australia suffers from Islamophobia
Rest of the section deleted as POV stating why Australians would be justified in hating Muslims, not really related to "Polls and Surveys"
I believe that a survey/poll section on such a controversial topic is not a good thing unless there are multiple surveys that are reliable and can support each others findings. A survey can be twisted in many ways and a poorly planned one means little or nothing. I will make a note on the rest of the section once I have a chance to look at its references. Ferdie3305:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Reports on Discrimination and Islamophobia in the EU
A lead should be a brief desciption of the topic and summary of the overall article, not a place for matters of detail. I think we should look at cutting the lead down a bit - either eliminating detail that is repeated later or at least writing in a more summary form. Detail that is not currently repeated later could be shifted. I haven't worked on this article for awhile and am unsure whose toes I'd be treading on if I decided to be bold - so I'm raising the issue here for discussion before I do anything significant. Metamagician300014:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Country-specific polls and surveys
This section is filled with OR/POV assessments about what is somehow an "Islamophobic" opinion, and some the articles that is used as a ref doesn't even make any allegations about anything "Islamophobic". I already started taking out some of the worst examples, and during the Christmas holidays I plan to make an effort to clean up the whole thing. -- Karl Meier16:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Here you say that we must not use any articles that do not specifically address "Islamophobia" or relevant topics, and yet you insist upon a using irrelevant dialog from a comedian in an article which has no discussion of Islam or Islamophobia. Why must we apply two different standards? Ibn Shah20:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Ibn Shah here, I think that Rowan Atkinson's comments would be appropriate in an article about the UK law, but not so much in a general article about Islamophobia. JACOPLANE • 2007-03-27 20:32
Hassan
I made some deletions in the "responses to criticism" as it was large section based on just one article by a rather non-notable person. Mr. Hassans opinions in this single article was given a huge amount of undue weight, and believe that something had to be done about this. I hope that this relevant section will be expanded again, this time with a more diverse range of notable opinions. -- Karl Meier16:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. It seems that someone has restored all the stuff that I removed earlier. Anyway, I just changed it back to a more appropriate size. -- Karl Meier15:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I am starting a new Catagory of people who are anti-Islamic. Please support this as the Jewish community have listed blatent antisemitic people.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ)03:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Without commenting specifically on this category, there being a category of "blatant antisemitic people" doesn't justify this either way. Nysin10:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I've deleted this entire section - almost every sentence needed a citation, and it had sat there for too long with nobody providing them. Jimbo has said again and again that we are to be ruthless in deleting uncited material, so the time for this material to go was well and truly up. Also, the section is POV. It assumes that there is such a thing as Islamophobia, when the general thrust of the article is to be neutral and report on both people who make such a claim and people who claim that it is a myth. The whole idea is controversial, as the lead says, so we must make sure that everything in the article reflects this. All claims about Islamophobia need to be attributed, rather than presented as the view of the encyclopedia. Metamagician300013:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Historical Information?
There is no historical information on Islamophobia here. What about Islamophobic views in the past? The Winston Churchill's quote:
“
How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog
Can we add stuff from Ali Sina on this . He says that "Islam is "unflinchingly violent, extremist, reactionary, intolerant, anti-Western and misogynistic" and "as the disease of mankind, and the source of all these wars, terror attacks and human miseries".[18] His website features editorials that suggest "[Islam] Means Death"[19] and that the Judeo-Christian civilization must "destroy Islam".[20] He says that Muslims "have no pride, no self esteem, no dignity, no honor", and are thus "evil". He further says that Muslims are "bullies".[22]"Bless sins15:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Be careful of original research, though - it's not up to us to conclude that these views are examples of something called "Islamophobia" whose existence is even doubted by some people. You need to find a notable secondary source that draws such conclusions. In the Churchill case, there's no doubt that there have long been anti-Islam feelings in Europe. For example, read Othello to get the flavour of how Islam was regarded in Europe in the 17th century. But my understanding is that "Islamophobia" is supposed to be a new phenomenon, different from historical forms of anti-Islam sentiment. If anyone has compared the two we could report on that: e.g. "Foo theorises that the modern phenomenon of Islamophobia has roots in the historical antagonism towards Islam that was pervasive in Europe from the eighth century, as a result of successive wars with Arabian and Turkish conquerors." Or whatever Foo may actually have said. Metamagician300001:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
...for which reason I am going to remove the tag. It is not at all obvious that we need a lot of background from deeper in history. Metamagician300003:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Fascistofobia
If irrational and baseless fear of Fascism and Fascists is Fascistophobia, then what is rational and based fear of Fascism? What a phobia becomes when the fears are well based? I belong in a sexual minority, Muslims declare and preach hate against sexual minorities and they hang gays in Iran and several other Islamic countries. My fears on Islam are well based - I take those death threats seriously. Is my disgust on Islam still a phobia? If I feel hate, disgust and fear on Fascists, am I a Fascistophobe?
Get off your soapbox. And what about Christianity with people like Fred Phelps? // Liftarn
Yes, the talk page is to discuss how to improve the article, not to vent our own feelings for or against Islam. The point of view of the anonymous user is already represented in the article, in so far as we describe the more notable denials that there is such a thing as Islamophobia, and the claims by some that it is applied to legitimate criticism of Islam. Metamagician300001:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
In response to the Fasciphobia comment. Is it a hate crime to promote an idealogy that more sexually restrictive than the lifestyle of homosexuals? Islam also preaches avoidance of pre-marital sex and modest dress. It is not wrong to preach self restraint (inclduing sexual restraint). If you happen to think so, perhaps it's because you assume Western individualism, promiscuity ,and decadence (as well as it may work for you) should be applied to every other person in the world. Isn't that essentially colonialism? Nlsanand02:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes - it is wrong if "promoting" involves beheadings, stonings, and maiming of the victims - something very common in the Islamic ideology... 69.86.18.1707:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)LordRahl
Once again, we are here to document claims about the controversial phenomenon of (alleged) Islamophobia, not to vent our feelings for or against Islam, or "Western decadence", or whatever else we may happen to dislike (or even support). Metamagician300005:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
BTW just so you know Islam is very different from many religions and you cant just compare it as 'barbaric' on your own opinion of what barbaric is. In Islam it often isn't that regular to send people to prison etc, because the idea is an 'eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth' where if someone commits a crime the equal punishment should be given, however after the punishment is given the victim is meant to completly forgive the criminal. Regardless of how YOU feel about this system of punishment many mslims would view it as fairer than sending someone to prison for life to suffer every day.
Citation tags in lead, and OR/POV issues in lead
The lead is meant to be a summary of the body of the article. I have trimmed it back so that that is all that it is. Please do not place citation tags on statements made in the lead that are elaborated in the body of the article with appropriate citations in the correct places.
In trimming back the lead, I removed some material that looks like original research or point of view claims. If this material can be substantiated, it is still too detailed for the lead, so could any new version of it please be incorporated in some appropriate place in the body of the article. Metamagician300012:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
So that the material that I deleted is not lost and can be worked on by the person who added it, I'll keep a copy here:
"This line of thinking holds that the term as been coined by liberal politicians to demonise and silence anyone who may voice a legitimate criticism of Islam. A construct of the term itself demonstrates a misuse of the greek root "phobia" which means fear. The accepted definition by those who use the term does not include the word "fear" in it. The term phobia has a negative connotation, implying a certain irrationality. This is possibly why those who developed and use the term Islamophobia would use it against people who are not particularly displaying any kind of "fear" of Islam."
In its current form this looks very much like someone's own research/opinion, so please don't add it back without doing work to substantiate and attribute it. Metamagician300012:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Criticism Section
This criticism section is ridiculously long. No other article on prejudice/discrimination contains anything like this at all. Is this an article on anti-Islam hate or an attempt to convince us it doesn't exist?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.149.122 (talk • contribs)
There are also numerous differences between Islamophobia and other prejudices. Other prejudices like antisemitism there is no doubt about the existance of. Islamophobia is a term often used to dismiss criticism, and many doubt the existance of discrimination against muslims; they consiter discrimination against muslims as dismissing criticism of islam. Criticism of islam is not discrimination against islam, and that needs to be clear. That is why the criticism section is as long as it is.--Sefringle04:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Anyone doubting the "existence of discrimination against Muslims" seriously has a screw loose in their head. Criticism of Islam is certainly not prejudice/hate/discrimination against Islam but there is a serious problem with a lot of what passes today under the umbrella of "criticism of Islam" -- namely, the strawman technique of pulling together the most extreme interpretations and practices and criticizing them as representative of a religion interpreted and practiced by 1.4 billion different people. --ChefGonzo10:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC).
If you think saying "islam is a religion of terrorism" is racism, you are wrong. That is not racism, especially if you can defend that claim. And to say it is is dismissing criticism. That is not discrimination. Now blowing up mosques is discrimination, but having a negative view of islam is not discrimination.--Sefringle22:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Blowing up mosques is hatred in the form of physical violence. Prejudice/hate/discrimination need not take the form of physical violence in order to be considered real or even exist. Is racism against blacks or anti-semitism against Jews, manifested in non-violent forms, not xenophobia? To pretend this kind of hate against Muslims doesn't exist is completely and utterly absurd. To say "Islam is a religion of terrorism" is a grossly exaggerated generalization and is a perfect example of the strawman technique of criticizing your preferred representation of Islam as representative of the whole. You can put together all sorts of "defenses" for that claim, but you are still working with an intellectually dishonest premise. No matter how it is practiced or what it means to 1.4 billion different people, your preferred representation of Islam is the "true" or "accurate" Islam. --ChefGonzo00:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
No, that is dismissing criticism. You are not comparing apples to apples. There are fundamental differences between Islamophobia and antisemitism. For one, nobody will say the phraise "Jews are trying to take over the world" is criticism of Judiasm. That is just racism. But to say "Islam is about terrorism" is criticism of Islam. It is a common topic of criticism of islam, and to say otherwise is dismissing criticism of islam. Same thing with distinguishing between ligitiment criticism of islam form illigitiment criticism of islam.--Sefringle00:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
No, it is not dismissing criticism. It is criticizing and scrutinizing the foundation of the "criticism" itself. I agree that saying "Jews are trying to take over the world" is anti-semitic -- the same way I also believe that saying "Muslims are trying to take over the world" is islamophobic. I am not the type of person who would point to extremist conservative elements in the West Bank building settlments in illegally occupied territories year after year, and interpretations of the Torah that argue that God promised Israel to the Jews, and point to the Jewish lobby groups in the United States and claim that all these groups are representative of Judaism's quest to manipulate the international community in their favor. At the same time, it is exactly this line of thinking I see being used when discussing Islam. IMHO, this a severe case of double standards. --ChefGonzo02:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
We are not here to settle this issue. We are only here to report the issue - some people claim that there is something that they call I"slamophobia" and which is closely analogous to, or even a form of, racism. Other people claim that this is not true or is at least exaggerated, and that the first claim is used to suppress what the people in this second camp consider to be legitimate criticism of Islam. Those are the facts. We need to present and elaborate those facts neutrally. I am dismayed to be reading a debate about which of the two camps, or schools of thought, is correct. It is not our job to adjudicate that - or to use the article to try to push one school of thought over the other - but only to present the facts in a neutral way. Metamagician300010:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Just got a question, if islamophobia is not racism against people who belive in islam what is? I mena is anti-semitism anti-arabic/islamic because arabs are technically semites? If it isn't isn't islamophobia the closest thing to a defention of unjustified fear of islam or its followers (the word phobia suggests this, To say 'I have a fear of what islam could bring' is not in itself that anti-islamic, but to fear islam is often lnked to fear of its believers, the word PHOBIA suggests itself that it is some irrational fear). I mean I think islamophobia is basically all we have got to describe irrational fear (or prejudice) against islam, and many people reffered to in this article would view it likewise as they wish to deny this. To say that islamophobia dosent actually exsist is like saying unjustified fear and agression towards muslims dosen't exsist, when the majority of people reading this at the moment (either left leaning or right leaning) must realise it does exsist, (original reasearch here) I infact encountered it today just on a debating site, references to 'mujis' who wish to take over the world etc.. I would call this pretty irrational and a gross generalisation. I think this page is quite honestly, very biased, and seems to play on the criticism of islamophobia as prejudice to give a lopsided view of how many muslims experience prejudice, and that the smaller section on what it is accepted as and whether it is accepted is very small (in comparison) and is itself is almost written as its refering to some type of urban legend. Its irrelavant waht the writer of this article thinks of islam as a religion, the article should be written in a balanced way which may give some examples of blatant prejudice against muslims and link this into the term islamophobia (which by most people, even those who are against islam, is a term acepted often as meaning irrational prejudice against islam, or prejudice)and not focus so much on trying to prove that islamophobia dosen't exsist, and then trying to say even if it does exsist it dosen't mean prejudice against muslims as a people, but just against their whole religion and them included. I mean if someone said im a satanist, or says 'christianity sucks' I think many christians would accept that at least to some degree that comment would be impying they 'suck'.
Sefringle's Reverts
Sefringle has reverted to an older version of this article with serious POV issues a second time. His reason follows: "oversimplification giving too much meaning to the authenticity of this topic."
Among these POV issues: 1) the labeling of suspect "criticism of Islam" as "legitimate criticism." "Criticism of Islam" is a neutral phrase whereas "legitimate criticism of Islam" deems the criticism "legitimate". To classify the suspect criticism as "legitimate" or "illegitimate" clearly demonstrates bias. 2) the claim is made in the intro that Islam is not a race or ethnicity. Anyone with a basic understanding of the theories of racialization and ethnicity knows this cannot be taken as a statement of fact. 3) plenty of weasel words are involved: non-Muslims are termed a sensationalized "infidels" when this is not even an Arabic term and Islamophobia is said to be "frequently" misused to attack "all" opponents of Islamic radicalism. "Frequently" is a matter or perspective -- "sometimes" is the neutral word. "All opponents of Islamic radicalism" are obviously not accused of being Islamophobes -- think US politicians like Dennis Kucinich and Jimmy Carter, or American Muslim scholars like Muqtedar Khan or Hamza Yusuf Hanson. 4) The YouGov poll on Muslim opinion bears little if any relevance to its section or the article and it is very much "spun" in its presentation in this article. 5) There is some OR included in the intro, claiming that "-phobia" in "Islamophobia" indicates "fear" rather than hatred or "loathing" -- this is opinion, not fact. The use of the suffix "-phobia" in "homophobia" clearly demonstrates a counter example, where "-phobia" is indicative of much more than just a "fear" of homosexuals or homosexuality. 6) In the case of at least one article, the concept of Islamophobia is not even referred to. This is OR. 7) Spelling and grammatical errors. I am reverting to the previous neutral version of this article. If Sefringle reverts again, I will be reporting this action to an administrator. --ChefGonzo00:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Going through Recent changes I came upon this dispute. The above user has no grounds to "report" Sefringle's edits but I do find them to be of poor quality and redundant. KazakhPol00:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Overlooking your massive oversimplification of the definition of racism, Islamophobia is frequently used to dismiss criticism of islam. Robert Spencer should not have been called an Islamophobe. He is just criticizing Islam, and to say otherwise is dismissing criticism, which is the goal of the concept. I can name numerous other critics who have been called an Islamophobe for criticizing Islam (virtual every single one). So yeah, the term is frequently used to dismiss criticism as racism. Frequently is not oversimplification, but instead of all opponents to Islamic radicalism, it would be better to say most opponents. Your mentioning of Hamza Yusuf is an example of ad populum. It is the same thing as mentioning the "anti-zionist jews" to say anti-zionism is not antisemitism, or those black Uncle Tom's to say the white supremacy is not racism. The previous version, while it has some errors, which I will fix, is much better and more accurate. Phobia does mean fear, and the source is here: Edmund J. Bourne, The Anxiety & Phobia Workbook, 4th ed, New Harbinger Publications, 2005, ISBN1-57224-413-5. It is relevant because the word is islamophobia. I did not re-insurt it, because I can't find a good place to put it.--Sefringle01:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
You are engaging in conspiracy theories if you're alleging there is some "goal" behind the concept of Islamophobia. You may call Robert Spencer a "critic of Islam" but in my opinion, he is a thoroughgoing Islamophobe whose work is totally founded on the same strawman logic that attempts to fashion an intolerant and extreme version of Islam as representative of the whole -- this is a basic characteristic of xenophobic discourse that surfaces again and again and again. I do not understand your assertion that my mention of Hamza Yusuf Hanson is an example of ad populum. It doesn't make any sense. Al Sharpton, John Conyers, Keith Ellison, Russ Feingold, Wesley Clark, As'ad AbuKhalil, Akbar Ahmed, Ziauddin Sardar, Tariq Ali, Reza Aslan -- all critics of radical Islam that are not considered Islamophobes. So no, "frequently" and "all" or "frequently" and "most" won't cut it. Phobia in the context of "Islamophobia" does not exclusively signify "fear." That is a case of oversimplifying the term.
Look specifically for the suffix definition (-phobia): dislike, intolerance, or aversion is included. This is why "homophobia" does not define just a "fear" of homosexuals but also a dislike, intolerance, and aversion. --ChefGonzo02:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The key phrase is "in your opinion." You are clearly dismissing criticism if you dismiss his arguemnets as racist with nothing to back it up other than you don't like the way his conclusion sounds. All of the arguements that Robert Spencer is an islamophobe can be categroized as Ad hominem. The same can be said for arguements that other people are "islamophobes." Critics of islam most certianly are frequently labeled islamophobes. Go through all the people in Category:Critics of Islam. Almost all of them have been labeled Islamophobes. That is dismissing criticism on a fundamental level , and if most certianly occurs frequently.--Sefringle02:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Again, the problem is not with criticism of Islamic radicalism, the problem is with criticism of Islamic radicalism passing itself off as "criticism of Islam" as a whole. One can criticize intolerant or hostile interpretations but when one fashions those versions of Islam as representative of the totality of Islam, they are being intellectually dishonest, working with a massive generalization (Reza Aslan recently pointed this out to Sam Harris in the Reason vs Religion debate on CSPAN). I don't know how many times I need to repeat that in order for it to be understood. People like Spencer have practiced this strawman approach to a fine art -- and no, that is not an ad hominem attack. It is a criticism of the very framework he uses to launch his own criticisms (in the same manner Said criticized Lewis and the Orientalists). The difference between critics of Islamic radicalism like Spencer on the one hand, and Juan Cole or Louay or Omid Safi or Carl Ernst on the other, is that they present a nuanced picture of Islam, reflective of its dynamism and diversity in belief and practice.--ChefGonzo02:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
First, it is Ad hominem, but more importantly, I think the new version the administrators instilled solves our issue here (for now).--Sefringle03:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
[un-indent]In looking at what has happened to this lately, I hardly know where to start, but the most obvious thing that leaps out at me is that the lead has vastly deteriorated in quality from how it was a week ago. The lead is not a place to offer juicy highlights of the article. It should be a three-para summary of the whole thing. A good lead will need very few citations - ideally none at all - because the citations to the claims summarised will be in the body of the article. Ideally, the lead will have nothing extra, since it merely summarises the article as a whole.
I am disappointed because I had put in a lot of work to get the lead in good shape, and that part of my work has been lost. I can't see any discussion of an intention to do this on the talk page. The current lead is full of material that is not of a summary character, but refers to the detail of particular incidents.
Also, there is now a lot of material that is far, far disproportionate. Devoting huge amounts of the article to explicating the detailed claims of a non-notable individual is not appropriate.
There also seems to have been some edit warring going on. There's nothing much I can do about that, since I'm too involved with the article, but would everyone please work towards a good, neutral article that we can be proud of. Metamagician300010:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
It appears that Sefringle has an axe to grind, and prefers biased language to neutral language. I would be more appropriate to provide well-sourced criticism of the topic, than to engage in such crude POV-pushing. --Tsunami Butler07:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Crude POV pushing? Changing alleged to percieved and labeled to consitered is definently POV pushing. Alleged and labeled do not take a stance, while percieved and consitered are taking the stance that it is true.--Sefringle02:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The above comment by Tsunami Butler is nothing but a rude personal attack. I suggest that we just ignore that kind of trollish comments by Mr. Tsunami Butler. -- Karl Meier22:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
My recent edits
I have made a few rather major edits to this article recently, and as they have been questioned and reverted by some editors, I'll try to explain why I made them.
1. In the intro section I added that the articles subject was controversial: "A controversial neologism". I did that, because the fact that a large number of notable persons that has criticized the concept and the use of the concept, has made it a plain fact that it is controversial. I believe that the article should reflect that reality right from the beginning, in order to be neutral.
2. I removed some of the material from the "responses to the criticism" section. I have tried to explain why in one of the above sections here: Talk:Islamophobia#Hassan
3. I removed and merged some of the material from the "Country-specific polls and surveys" section. The reason I did that, was as I mentioned in my edit summaries, that the material there was almost nothing but original research. What was presented was mostly surveys that mentioned various opinions held by a percentage of those that participated in them. There was almost no mentioning or any allegations of "Islamophobia", and as such I can't see it as but original research, that we imply that these opinions are somehow "Islamophobic", by including them in our article on the subject. -- Karl Meier23:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
It isn't particularly controversial. It's used by the United Nations, European Union, and British government, and as such has entered the mainstream. You also removed a lot of material, which is why I reverted you, including material from the California University academic, which is carefully sourced, and which is an intelligent argument, exactly the kind of thing our articles should include, whether we personally agree with it or not. SlimVirgin(talk)00:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
"isn't particularly controversial" ? For example, Islamofascism is a term that's entered the mainstream, and even used by the President of the United States of America. It is more than fair to call it "controversial" and its Wikipedia entry says so in the first sentence. However, to remove the word from the Islamofascism entry would be censorship of reality. The same applies here. Islamophobic is a term obviously invented to stifle legitimate criticism of Islam. A person with a REAL phobia experiences extreme anxiety and fear when dealing whatever it is they are phobic with. Can you cite one example of any of these people labeled as "islamophobes" who has some kind of panic attack when the topic turns to Islam? No. The term is obviously controversial, and on the same token should remain in this article as well.ProtectWomen07:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll take another look at it, because it's a while since I read it. I liked it because it's a solid argument (writing from memory), whereas the rest of the article is really just people saying "it's real!" "no, it isn't!" I don't mean this is the fault of the editors here, by the way, just the state of the debate. SlimVirgin(talk)00:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I've re-read it. I don't see how the undue weight provision applies here, as this is almost certainly representative of responses to the criticism generally; in fact, my guess is that this is the majority position, given that the acceptance of the concept of Islamophobia appears to be the majority position now. It's also, as I said, intelligent, and actually an argument, rather than a series of assertions, which is what we should be looking to include. SlimVirgin(talk)00:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
If arguments presented by Mr. Hassan in that article should take around eighty percent of the of space in the "Responses to criticism" section, then I believe that it is not enough that we might think that his opinions is interesting or intelligent. And it's not enough that he is a academic at the University of California either. I believe that we need to make a case that he and the opinions that he expressed in that article is somehow sufficiently notable enough to be given that amount of weight in that section. We need evidence that the opinions that he expressed in the article has been quoted and used and commented on by other notable sources. If such material doesn't exist, then I believe we should give less weight to the opinions he expressed i that specific article, and expand the article with a more diverse range of other notable opinions. As for the concept being controversial, it is perhaps true that it has to some extend entered the "mainstream" and that the majority of people that has used it has not criticized it, but that doesn't make it "not controversial". A concept is controversial if a substantial amount of notable voices has criticized it, and that is the case with "Islamophobia" as it is obvious from the "criticism" section. Another issue is that I don't understand why the "surveys" section keep getting restored. I removed what was clearly nothing but original research, and moved what was useful to more appropriate sections. -- Karl Meier10:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Karl, add more responses to the criticism if you want more voices, rather than shortening Hasan.
Regarding the "controversial" concept: in what sense is it controversial? Karl and whoever else wants to add this: are you arguing there is no prejudice against Muslims, and that it's "controversial" to say there is?
That doesn't solve the problem that his opinions is given a huge amount of undue weight. Other opinions could of course improve that section, but for now I'll leave that to others, and focus on the problems with Hassan. Did you have any evidence that justify that he and the opinions that he expressed in that article, should given the amount of weight that your version of the article does?
I am arguing that the concept of Islamophobia and the way it is being used, is controversial. The "criticism" section has a lot of evidence that makes it clear to me, that the concept has been criticized by many notable voices in the public debate. That I believe makes it a reality that it is controversial.
My guess is that you don't like Hasan's arguments because they're strong and intelligent. The undue weight provision of NPOV doesn't apply to individuals in the way you're trying to use it. Please read the policy to see what it means. SlimVirgin(talk)09:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Please do not make such guesses. We are not here to discuss personal opinions, and bad faith accusations only poisons the atmosphere. Fact is that I have seen nothing in Wikipedias policies that indicate that undue weight doesn't apply to the opinions of individuals. Could you please quote from these policies? Anyway, if you could do as I requested and provide some notable references that has mentioned the opinions that Mr. Hassan expressed in the article, then I won't mind that more weight is given to them in that specific section. Frankly, as it is now, I can't even see any evidence that Mr. Hassan himself is in any way notable enough to be given much weight in this article. -- Karl Meier14:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, the material that I deleted from there didn't say anything about any "Islamophobia", but just mentioned various opinions of people that participated in some specific surveys. For us to include such material is to imply that these opinions is somehow "Islamophobic", and that is original research. -- Karl Meier21:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I am OK with the survey section being there, however only sourced statistics should be mentioned, and they should use similar words to the origional source--Sefringle02:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe that it is also important that the statistics that we include, is relevant to the articles subject. I believe that it is not enough, that it is relevant according to our original research. -- Karl Meier06:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
People don't have to use the word "Islamophobia," because this isn't an article about the use of the word, but about the concept. So long as the sources are clearly talking about that, it's WP:POINT to insist that the actual word must be used. SlimVirgin(talk)09:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
As long as there is no accusations or mentioning of so-called "Islamophobia", then how is it not original research for us to suggest that these surveys are somehow relevant to a discussion about the concept of "Islamophobia"? Why do you believe that these surveys should be included in our article? -- Karl Meier14:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
'Significant, established organization? Are you serious? Please tell me you aren't. Guess what, the "KKK" is a significant, established organization, and everyone here would be offended if theirthe Klu Klux Klan's opinion was being cited as scholarly encyclopedic fact in an article on "anglophobia" (for example).
CAIR is an extremist organization, that has many very, very controversial members and opinions. There is no way that CAIR is a WP:RS -- Karl Meier14:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
CAIR is a notable source worth quoting for their 'opinion' but their opinion should not be cited as an encyclopedic definition for "Islamophobia" as a primary source. Do you understand the difference? ProtectWomen20:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Leading ethnic activist groups are often used to give authoratative statements about their community and the perceived discrimination against them. While I actually don't think that is fair, it is common practice. The NAACP and ADL are very prominent in defending their respective communities despite their controversial nature at times. Negating CAIR as being extremist is essentially labelling the muslim-american community majority as fringe and virtually not allowing any of their opinions on wiki because their organizations do not meet WP:RS. If this site only claimed to represent the white christian west, i may agree with Karl; but it does not, and hence some voice should be given to large diverse non violent organizations on wiki, even if we may not agree with them —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fermat1999 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
SlimVirgin Edit
The trail back to your user page shows you to be some kind of administrator, which is actually shocking, given your edits on this article. Your argument that "controversial" should be removed because prejudice against muslims is real is a bit embarrassing to watch you try and justify.
You'll notice that the title of this article isn't "Prejudice Against Muslims"; it is "Islamophobia". This word, ISLAMOPHOBIA is a derogatory term applied liberally against anyone who presents legitimate criticism of Islam, in order to stifle debate and hide the problems associated with Islam. Hence, the phrase accurately describes the word "Islamophobia" as a "controversial neologism".ProtectWomen08:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
This article isn't about the term Islamophobia. It's about the concept, which is simply one of prejudice against Muslims, as the article states. The concept is used formally by the United Nations and the European Union, as well as by innumerable governments and anti-racist organizations, so that it's controversial in and of itself is a tiny-minority opinion. Its application is controversial, in that some commentators believe it's applied too widely and used to stifle criticism, but that's a separate point. SlimVirgin(talk)09:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Those that has criticized the concept itself is not a tiny, insignificant minority. Here is just a few of the people that has criticized it and called a "wretched concept" in this case in connection with the publication of the "MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism": Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Chahla Chafiq, Caroline Fourest, Bernard-Henri Levy, Irshad Manji, Mehdi Mozaffari, Maryam Namazie, Taslima Nasreen, Salman Rushdie, Antoine Sfeir, Philippe Val, Ibn Warraq.
The fact that political organizations such as the United Nations, which is often dominated by Islamic memberstates, has used it, doesn't make the concept uncontroversial. It would be uncontroversial if there haven't been much notable criticism of it, but as it is obvious from the "criticism" section, that is not the case. -- Karl Meier14:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Karl, it's not only UN committees that use the term, but the Secretary-General himself. It's used by the British government, and by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. That shows that the term and the acceptance of the phenomenon have moved into the mainstream. Just because a handful of people sign a petition, that doesn't make the concept "controversial." SlimVirgin(talk)16:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
If the concept is controversial, then we describe the controversy around the concept, presenting fairly all significant viewpoints relevant to the controversy, without siding with any side. That is what NPOV editing is all about. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)16:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
SlimVirgin: I have never disputed the fact that word has been used by a significant number of important individuals and organizations. That among other things makes the articles subject notable and worth having an article about, but I don't see how that should make it uncontroversial? The concept of "Islamophobia" has notable individuals and organizations supporting and using it, and it has important and notable individuals criticizing and rejecting it. What I mentioned above is not just "a handful of people that has signed a petition". It is a long list of well known and notable individuals that has rejected the concept and criticized it as what they call a "wretched concept." And they are not the only important and influential individuals that has rejected the concept. The "criticism" section list a lot of notable individuals that has also criticized the concept. Frankly, I can't see it as anything but a plain fact that it has received more than enough notable criticism to be controversial. -- Karl Meier17:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Karl, I've left the word "controversial" in just so I'm not reverting wholescale, but I don't agree that it should be stated in the intro as though it's a fact. As for the rest, you're removing perfectly valid, well-sourced material. For example, it's directly relevant that Kofi Annan made that statement, and it's a very good way to introduce the article. I accept that the UN is made up of sometimes controversial committees, and it's hard to regard them as reliable sources, but none of those concerns apply to the Secretary-General, who is normally very careful about how he expresses himself. SlimVirgin(talk)17:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I must say that I am very pleased that you are leaving the word "controversial". Notable and substantial has been raised against the concept, and reading the "criticism" section, I can't see that as anything but a fact. Another issue is that I believe that there is still some problems left, and one of them is the issues regarding the original research material in the "surveys" section. The material I have deleted from there doesn't say anything about any "Islamophobia", and I can't see why it should be relevant to our article? Why do you believe it is relevant and why should it be included? What sources allege that these views that we present are somehow Islamophobic? If we ourselves are the only source that does that, then I can't see it as anything but a clear example of original research. You obviously believe otherwise, but I don't understand why? Regarding the Annan quote, I moved it to a more appropriate section, because I believe we should be careful about giving so much weight to a strong and controversial opinion in that specific section, and because my understanding is that the lead section should only contain a very concise summary of the material that is already used elsewhere in the article. Starting the article with an angry and highly opinionated and politicized quote that makes allegations about "widespread bigotry", also doesn't seems to be the most neutral and encyclopedic way to start an article about a controversial issue. I wouldn't expect that from a serious Encyclopedia, and I believe that our tone should be somehow more disinterested. -- Karl Meier18:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is obviously much better off with a level-headed thinker such as Karl Meier. He is dead right- the survey section, while interesting, says absolutely nothing about "Islamophobia" and bears no relevance to this article. The word "Islamophobe" is itself a derogatory epithet and is not the same thing as a person who criticizes Islam (although many people fantasize that they are one and the same). That seems to be the source of the controversy. Some people believe that Islam should not be criticized at all- thus this word is used to lump everyone who criticizes Islam (as a religion) in with a very small number of people who are prejudiced against Muslims or perhaps racist. If someone says that Islam (a religion, not a race) is oppressive to women, the Runnymede trust would call that person an "Islamophobe"... But we can say "Christianity is oppressive to gays" and nobody jumps up to call that person a "Christianophobe". This kind of backwards thinking is quite sad.
Your implication that others in this discussion are not "level-headed" is not helpful. JACOPLANE • 2007-03-5 21:42
At anytime, anywhere, anyplace on this earth, that a compliment is being paid, it is at the expense of insulting someone else. If I say to you, "you have a beautiful smile" this is only possible because someone somewhere has a horrible smile to serve as a reference point. Otherwise every single person in existence would have a precisely equal "neutral" smile, neither beautiful, nor offensive.
If I pay someone in this discussion page a compliment, and another party feels excluded- or for that matter, feels that the compliment is paid at their expense-- I shall have nothing to feel bad about. We all make choices, we all have our place in the universe (which thrives on dualities; the Chinese call it Yin and Yang). Some people stand on the side of reason and logic. We know this to be true because there are others who side with illogical emotions and desire to see reality not as it is, but as they would like it to be. Otherwise, Jacoplane, I appreciate your concern in the matter. ProtectWomen07:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Latest edit by SlimVirgin
First I want to say that I am pretty disappointed to see that SlimVirgin has now rejected the compromise after a week with a stable article, and has started reverting again. The issues that I and other editors has raised above regarding original research material and the undue weight given to the opinions of a relatively unknown commentator, still needs to be addressed. -- Karl Meier11:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I must also say that I feel that a revert a week after the last major edit to the article, having only the edit summary "no way" as an explanation is not the best way to restart a debate. -- Karl Meier11:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Page protected
Now that the page is protected, we have a chance to get this ironed out. Karl, I conceded "controversial" to you. I'm prepared to concede the country-wide polls. Does anyone else have a view on that?
I am inclined to agree with Karl and other editors that unless polls and other sources are specifically discussing "Islamophobia" it is a bit original researchish to be assigning the term to such things. (→Netscott)13:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
As before I am willing to accept all of Hassan, even though I still believe that his opinions is given more weight than what is reasonable. I can also accept including Annan in the intro section, but to address the problems that I have mentioned above, I believe that we should edit it a bit so that the tone of the intro section remain what it should be: Neutral, encyclopedic and disinterested. -- Karl Meier14:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
As a compromise, I would accept a lead section that look like this:
Islamophobia is a controversial neologism defined as a prejudice against or demonization of Muslims. [1][2][3][4] The term dates back to the late 1980s [5] or early 90s, [6] although its use has increased since the September 11, 2001 attacks. [7][8]
The British Runnymede Trust described Islamophobia in 1997 as the view that Islam has no values in common with other cultures; is inferior to the West; is a violent political ideology rather than a religion; that its criticisms of the West have no substance; and that discriminatory practices against Muslims are justified. [9]
British writer and academic Kenan Malik has criticized the concept, calling it a "myth." Malik argues that it confuses discrimination against Muslims with criticism of Islam, and is used to silence critics of the religion, including Muslims who want to reform it. [10] The novelist Salman Rushdie was among the signatories to a statement in March 2006 calling Islamophobia a "wretched concept that confuses criticism of Islam as a religion and stigmatisation of those who believe in it." [11]
The term has been used by a number of individuals and organisations, including Kofi Annan, who voiced his opinion on a UN conference in 2004: "[W]hen the world is compelled to coin a new term to take account of increasingly widespread bigotry, that is a sad and troubling development. Such is the case with Islamophobia." [6][12] -- Karl Meier14:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The reason I like Kofi Annan right up front is, first, that he's an authoritative source, and secondly, because we call it a neologism, and then we have a source saying why it was coined. So in terms of good narrative flow, it's a good quote for the start of the lead. However, I'd be willing to go along with Karl's suggested compromise lead.
Great then. With no remaining issues, I guess we then have a compromise. I will request that the article is unprotected. -- Karl Meier16:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
While I personally think that Islamaphobia is used as a way to stifle debate in some circumstances (with limited to great success in different countries), the term itself is not controversial. At least, not anymore controversial than the term anti-semitism (which has come to mean dislike of jews). Islamophobia is simply a reference to dislike of muslims. Simple. The term is not controversial for it's existance (yes karl, there are people out there that dislike muslims; reading your previous edits I suspect you may be one yourself). The use of islamophobia as an epithet to stifle political debate is very real, but that concept is an article in and of itself. Similarly to how the accusation of anti-semitism to stifle debate in some circles may be controversial, but the term itself is not as the hatred of jews is a real phenomenom.
My or your personal opinions is not the subject of our discussion here, and the fact that there has been raised a lot of notable criticism of the concept itself (see the "criticism" section) makes it a fact that it is indeed controversial. -- Karl Meier00:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The Delete Discussion Outcome
Perhaps I'm missing something here, but a quick count was 12 Delete, 5 Delete/Rename, 2 Keep/Rename and 7 Keep. It seems a consensus was reached, and that was (depending on how you count it) 17 delete, 7 rename, and 9 keep. Hard to tell with all the discussion that had no votes but it looks like this should be deleted 17 or renamed 16 (if we count the keeps as renames) Or 24 delete/rename and 16 keep/remain. ??? Just wanted to mention it.
To chime in here, I'm at a loss to explain how somebody can have a phobia about a religion or political or etc system. Cathli-phobia? Democra-phobia? Seems a rather odd word. It seems to be an ad hominem pre-emptive strike. Are we saying all fear of a belief system or method of behavior is irrational? I'm sure plenty of folks were scared of Ghengis Kahn; Ghengis-Kahn-a-phobia? lol But it is being used, so should be "explained" here I suppose. Sln341219:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Terms develop under bizarre circumstances. Anti-semitism seems like a bizarre way to describe anti-jewish sentiments because semites encompass alot more than jews. But it's a term that has developed with time and has become standard as a description of anti-jewish behaviour/sentiments. Ditto with the term Holocaust (a term developed post WWII and that took time to fully take hold). Similary "African-American" or "Asian-American" when those terms were first developed in the 1960s. Islamophobia, in the modern era, simply means disliking muslims...even if the word phobia is in it and the etymology does not make sense. The meaning of a word is not always the sum of it's parts.
I suspect that the term is being attacked because the legitimacy of anti-islamism is being denied by a few people. Analogy is not perfect, but it is somewhat similar to those that deny racism exists against blacks or whatever ethnic group who's concerns a person wants to belittle. I'm afraid that people like Karl simply want to impose their strong POV in this article for a word that has more or less become a standard term for discribing anti-islamism. Accepting the minority view of Karl's is similar to accepting white supremacists/nationalists view about the "alleged holocause" or "the controversial term anti-semitism". It is unacceptable.
Oh? Why are persons who have critics on the ideology islam then called mental in sane ? ("phobia" means a mental illness in case you didn't know that) Limboot16:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Kofi Annan in the lead
I do not agree that the Kofi Annan quote should be included in the lead. I think it adds very, very little to the article. Furthermore, Kofi Annan is not an expert on Islam (I don't even think he is a Muslim, though I could be wrong about that). Is Kofi Annan's views on Islamophobia any more notable than Ban Ki-moon's views or Boutros Boutros-Ghali's views on the subject? I propose the removal of the third sentence of the first pargaph of the article. --GHcool20:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree with this view. His view is only notable in that he's led the U.N. It would be more logical if a scholarly source on the subject was quoted in the lead. (→Netscott)20:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
OK. If nobody disagrees by Tuesday, I'm going to delete the Kofi Annan sentence from the lead. --GHcool18:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
GHcool, I restored it because it was part of the compromise lead agreed to. It's clearly relevant what a very recent Secretary-General of the United Nations says, and even more so given that he's explaining how it's a new term, which is what our lead says, so it speaks directly to that issue: that it's new and that it's notable. SlimVirgin(talk)02:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, I respectfully disagree. I do not understand your reasoning. The quote certainly relates to Islamophobia and was said by a recent UN secretary-general (and non-Muslim), but why should it necessarily follow that the quote should be included in the lead. As a counterargument, I ask you if you would accept this quote from Kofi Annan in the lead of the anti-Semitism or new anti-Semitism article: "Anti-Semitism has flourished even in communities where Jews have never lived, and it has been a harbinger of discrimination against others. The rise of anti-Semitism anywhere is a threat to people everywhere. Thus, in fighting anti-Semitism we fight for the future of all humanity."[3] I would say that although Annan's view might be worth mentioning within the article, he is not an expert on the subject or even a victim or perpetrator of the phenomenon and so it does not seem logical that a quote from Annan would get such a prominent place in the lead. --GHcool03:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't recall there being a consensus on the Kofi quote, but I have to agree with GHcool 100%. Kofi Annan was little more than a corrupt politician who left his position at the U.N. in disgrace. Kofi Annan is not any kind of authoritative source on Islamophobia. In fact his family made lots and lots of money from the oil-for-food scandal, thanks to a sunni-muslim named Hussein- as far as he is concerned, Islam is the bee's knees, it made his family rich. I'm not saying the quote should not be included somewhere, but the lead is an inappropriate place for Kofi's comments. On the same token, George W. Bush is not quoted in the lead on Islamofascism even though he's made comments on the term. I think it is good that Bush is NOT in the lead over at that article, we should take that example to heart on this article as well. --ProtectWomen18:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for agreeing with me, ProtectWomen, but I prefer we stay on the topic of this article and not criticize Kofi Annan in aspects of his life that do not pertain to the quote. I'm sorry if that seems rude, but I don't want to get too far off topic. That being said, if SlimVirgin or anybody else that disagrees with me does not respond to me on this talk page, I will delete the Kofi Annan quotation from the lead on Friday, March 30 (Los Angeles time). --GHcool02:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh protect women I think you should know you betrayed your anti-muslim sentiments in what you just said, maybe you shoudl edit it or soemthing, do you believe because a muslim t=made Kofi Annan rich that ALL muslims made Kofi Annan rich? If you do thats a very racist and ignorant thing to say, perhaps it was just an honest mistake, but to say because Kofi Annan knew someone who gave him money who was a muslim, is the same thing as Islam sponsoring something its ridiculously prejudiced. It would be like saying christianity started the war in Iraq because George W Bush is a christian, it jsut dosnet make any sense.
Note: Please see the village pump policy discussion regarding the title of this article
I don't understand. A neologism is phrase which has been recently created and applies to new concepts. Why does that violate criteria for having its own category?Bless sins02:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The reason is that through adoption and utilization of a given neologism Wikipedia loses its neutrality about it. As the following links demonstrate the term "Islamophobia" is still entering into the English lexicon:
Zbigniew Brzezinski (John Hopkins University & Former National Security Advisor) and Diana Ralph (Carleton University) have both written/spoken about how Islamophobia is provoked and used by neoconservatives in the US administration.ChefGonzo01:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Which is just a bit hypocritical on Brzezinski's part, since he helped get the ball rolling with his "Arc of Crisis" stuff back in the Seventies. This article ought to also mention Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington as prime movers behind the emergence of this phenomenon. --Tsunami Butler00:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Rowan Atkinson?
I found a good reference that mentioned "Islamophobia" in relation to Rowan Atkinson's view opposing the Religious hatred law. Was it not enough? (→Netscott)00:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It looks like a solid citation. Atkinson's name is in the headline and his remark is in the lead. The article you cited ends with:
Shami Chakrabarti, director of civil liberties group Liberty, said: "There is a distinction between definitions of racial hatred and religious hatred. One refers to an immutable characteristic about which there is little debate to be had, and the other to a body of ideas.
"People in a democracy have the right vigorously to debate, and even denigrate, others’ ideas."
If passed, the Bill would "excite all sorts of expectations that no sensible Attorney General could ever meet", she said, warning it was "likely to make the existing problem of Islamophobia worse, not better".
Mr Marshall-Andrews predicted that giving the Attorney General the final say on whether prosecutions go ahead would turn him into "the whipping boy for religious bigotry", inundated with complaints from fundamentalist groups and then lambasted for turning them down.
Why is Jehanzeb Hasan, a mere research assistant without any claim to importance, deemed notable enough for his views to be presented in this article? Why is furthermore 90% of the "Response to criticism" section devoted to his views? What is his photo doing in this article? And why is Media Monitors Network where his opinion piece was published deemed a reliable source? BeitOr20:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Good points. Who included the section in the first place? I'll start by removing his photo, as it is irrelevant. --ProtectWomen20:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Totally agree. Thanks for the sharp eye, Beit. I notifed Slimvirgin here about this, who had inserted this. It will be interesting to see her defense here. --Matt57(talk•contribs)02:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Antisemitism is not just "critism" or Judaism... // Liftarn
Exactly. Therefore antisemitism is hatred against an etnic group of humans. Critism against the ideology islam is no etnic hatred. I hope you know that atheist and christian Jews also disappeared in the gaschambers so denying of the holocaust is no part of pro-islam propagandists. Limboot17:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Islamophilia is deleted and protected, no islamophilia doesn't exist whuhahahaha
Islamophilia is a controversial neologism. Islamophilia is an opposite term for an other controversial neologism (Islamophobia). Islamophilia is used for non-muslims who are ,according for example Daniel Pipes to much sympathysing with the ideologyIslam. The highest level the word islamophilia reached was a cover article of Dutch opinion magazine Elsevier about the Quran journalist Gerry van der List used the word "islamophile" in the quote "the islamophile theologe Karen Armstrong.
Perhaps, when the article is unprotected again, you could write a section about it in this article? It seems very much relevant to include information regarding these issues here. -- Karl Meier06:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course good sources will have to be used, and the notability of the issue will have to be established. However, I don't see any reason why we should doubt that the article will eventually be unprotected, and it is in our power to speed up the process by working towards a compromise. Sefringle, what is your thoughts about the suggestion for a compromise that has been made in the section below. If you can agree to it, and if you don't have any further concerns, I will ask that the article is unprotected. -- Karl Meier12:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am biased towards not including redirects when the link already redirects on its own. Unfortunately, it has affected my edits. I also have a strong anti-random comma POV that I push. KazakhPol05:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
While I disagree with his edits he is not trolling. Sefringle and Karl Meier, If the only part of my edits you disagree with are the removing of "alleged" then please re-add "alleged" rather than doing complete reversions. I oppose including "alleged" in the section headings because the alleged-ness of the instances discussed is made clear within the paragraph. Note that I am usually accused of having an anti-Islam bias. KazakhPol16:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Alleged needs to be in the section titles, because Islamophobia is contraversial, and to label certian views or actions as islamophobic is POV pushing, as many would disagree that such actions or views are actually a prejudice act.--Sefringle03:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that alleged is needed. We are here to present notable opinions, not to endorse them as facts. As for KazakhPol's suggestion regarding a compromise, my answer is no. The other sections titles will have to remain as they are too. If that is accepted, then I will agree to the compromise. -- Karl Meier18:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Great. If there is no other concerns by anyone here (NPOV related or otherwise), I guess we can request that the article is unprotected and adjust it according to this agreement. -- Karl Meier06:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
In the first place we could mention that "islamophobia" isn't a part of the dictionary of the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary "just like the opposing term islamophilia". Anyone a more independent suggestion ? Limboot16:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Attempts to define the concept
This section seems to have some serious problems, especially due to the fact that the majority of its content or in other words everything except the first part which discuss the Runnymede Trust definition, doesn't seems to discuss or make any attempts to define the concept of Islamophobia. Everything except the part that discuss the Runnymede Trust definition seems to be off-topic and largely irrelevant to the subject that section is supposed to be discussing. I suggest that when the article is unprotected all the off-topic content should be either be moved to more appropriate sections or if in specific cases that is impossible to do properly, be deleted or moved to the articles discussion page. Anyone that agree, disagree or have any comments regarding this? -- Karl Meier18:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Much of it seems to be pontification on the subject of race as opposed to an attempt to actually define the term. But I wouldn't chop everything except Runnymede without also having another source to add that directly attempts to define the term; some of the sources Rokus added to Criticism of Islam recently could perhaps be mined for this. - Merzbow07:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that more than just one definition should be included, and perhaps we could start by moving Stephen Schwartz and his definition to this section? -- Karl Meier07:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I like his definition, but I know heat is going to be generated by those who don't think FrontPageMag should be cited anywhere (a bogus argument, it's clearly notable in the genre of modern political commentary about Islam and the Middle East). I'd suggesting including that plus something else so we have three sources; I would then vigorously defend the FPM cite as an alternative definition of the term by those from the right (who are often accused of Islamaphobia themselves). - Merzbow07:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it is reasonable to consider the definition by Stephen Schwartz to be an alternate definition from those that are often accused of Islamophobia themselves. His article might have been published in FrontPageMag, but fact is that he is an Islamic convert and a practicing Muslim, and I find it hard to imagine a situation where anyone would call him an "Islamophobe". Reading the article it seems to me that he is defending the way that the concept is currently being used by among others Islamic organizations. This being said, I support that another (notable) definition should be added. Until we find such a notable definition, I believe it we should stick to the two definitions that we got, and clean up the section by moving the off-topic content there to other sections (if and where possible). -- Karl Meier13:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I think this section was fine before Karl Meier started to destroy information. The "Runnymede Trust definition" of Islamophobia is not just descriptive: Islamophobia was obviously coined to label a certain kind of thinking to be bad. Thus, the concept of good and bad and acceptance considering this definition (or practice) should be included to provide context. Without, this definition section will be as tainted as the word Islamophobia was intended to be. The Seabrook reference("Religion as a fig leaf for racism", The Guardian, July 23, 2004:"Islamophobia is the only form of prejudice to which the middle class can readily admit: a religion which is perceived as advocating repression of women and hatred of gays renders acceptable forms of prejudice that would be unthinkable if directed against any other social group.") could be moved to footnote Seabrook when is quoted later on in this section. Rokus0107:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I dont think the guardian article is as biased against islam as you obviously are by the fact it could be referring to the fact that it is the middle class which are the biggest islamophobes (in their point of view) and that the middle class PERCIEVE islam as that type of religion, when the actual article I think is much more sympathetic towards islam. By using that guardain article (or half of it) I think you are actually distorting what it is trying to say and making it out as though islam is a 'bad' religion and that islamophobia is only used by people who wish to prohibit free thought, which is in a summary crap, and often an argument used by racist/prejudiced people not just for islam but for Judaism, Homosexuals etc. I mean In a way its an argument to an argument, someone brands some prejudiced person (who may well be openly prejudiced/racist)
by using the term islamophobe, and even if they ae prejudiced you come back with the argument which is that if you call someone racist (even if they clearly are) then you are prohibiting intellectual thought, the truth is most prejudiced people are not prejudiced because of intellectual thought, usually quite the opposite, ignorance and double standars which prohibit them from judging themselves and their allies beliefs, but encourage the judgement of beliefs you dont approve of.
"islamophobia was not found in the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary"
So where are we talking about? Wiki.en is very non-independant by placing an article about "islamophobia" and then also by deleting every link to the opposing "neogolisms" Islamophilia and phobomania (and even banning me for it) Limboot16:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
You were blocked for WP:3RR, it's nothing personal. As for the other two articles, they have/are being deleted because sources were not provided in accordance with WP:NEO. - Merzbow17:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Strange that Islamophilia and Phobomania are accepted articles on dutch wiki. Futher I had a link for Islamophilia out of the largest dutch opinion magazine (Elsevier) but I you keep deleting. Limboot18:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I did not see the article before it was deleted but one link isn't enough to source an article on a neologism. WP:NEO is applied pretty strictly; multiple English-language sources are needed. - Merzbow18:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Sweet Baby Jesus, when SlimVirgin is the moderate in the discussion on Anti-Muslim prejudice left manning the wall against the hordes of editors who want to essentially say there is no islamophobia you have a funked up discussion. I pity Muslims with their POV that is invisible in this forum.
The opening paragraph in this article is tortured and ridiculous. Islamophobia is not "described by some" as a prejudice against Muslims: I can find it on dictionary.com [4] or in Webster's for God's sake. What is the malfunction here?
The opening paragraph might lead you to believe (and some of the comments of editors here, too) that its debatable whether there even is anti-Muslim prejudice anywhere. Please tell me no one here honestly believes that. And if that prejudice exists, and a word is already in circulation to describe it, why not?
I think, in the "critics" section, that if any of those authors had said what they said about Judaism instead of Islam that material would be used as evidence of anti-semitism. Try subbing the word "Jews" for "Muslims" and "Judaism" for "Islam" and see what it sounds like. MarkB216:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Antisemitism is no criticism on an ideology, like "islamophobia" is. Or do you really believe every Jew is a judaist (and not e.g. an a christian or atheist or theistic atheist?). So "islamophobia" is controversial Limboot16:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
MarkB2: Please cut down on the personal remarks. The concept of "Islamophobia" is controversial because of all the notable criticism that has been raised against it. See the article. As for the first definition that is mentioned in the first sentence of the article, it is not the only one that exist. There are other definitions and some of them are much more broad than the first one that we mention. -- Karl Meier18:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Limboot: I don't think criticizing Islam as an ideology constitutes "Islamophobia," nor is Islamophobia defined by modern dictionaries as such. It is defined as the irrational fear or hatred of Muslims. Anyone who criticizes another as an "Islamophobe" because he/she criticizes the practices and beliefs of Muslims is misusing the term.
Misusing the term? The term "islamophobia" has just been invented to criminalize persons who criticise (the ideology) islam Limboot15:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Karl: I would apologize, but in reviewing my remarks I wasn't sure how asserting that many editors (like yourself, from what I can glean on this discussion page) "want to essentially say there is no islamophobia" and thus concluding that the discussion is "funked up" constitutes something unduly offensive. You do have a problem with the entire "concept" of Islamophobia, no? And is it unduly offensive for a user to say he thinks a discussion is "funked up?" I found it amusing that SlimVirgin, someone who typically advocates for Jewish people, is the one left to defend Islamophobia as a serious issue.
You are right, however, in ascertaining that I consider your views on the subject to be inaccurate, wrong, whatever. I agree with SlimVirgin: the application of the term "Islamophobia" may be controversial, but the concept of the term isn't: anti-Muslim bigotry exists and you can find a simple definition on Dictionary.com of what that concept is.
I'm not saying the critics of the term should be ignored; I'm just saying their views shouldn't be in the header. MarkB209:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree. At least we can say it is controversial and the word "islamophobia" is not to find in an important dictionary ("like the opposing term islamophilia (so a link to the opposing controversial term). Limboot15:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The term Islamophobia is a logical fallacy. If one means to speak against anti-Muslim bigotry than they should have invented the term "Muslimophobia" or perhaps "Anti-Muslimism". Islam is an ideology; it is not a human being. Muslims are human beings, but they are not a "race" of human beings. Muslims around the world are all races, so trying to pin anti-Muslimism as a form of racism is also tough to do.
The term 'islamophobia' was invented in order to squelch criticism of Islam itself and only indirectly applies to Muslims (as practitioners of Islam). However, one could easily be against the ideology of Islam without indiscriminately hating all Muslims. In fact, among critics of Islam, most I have seen have a problem with the religion and not the innocent members of the religion.
Let me give an example using another "religion" . Many of us know the story of Lisa McPherson, a scientologist. This woman was a devout scientologist but we don't dislike her for that. In fact we care about her and despise the "religion" that ultimately was responsible for her extreme suffering and early demise. Scientology is an ideology- a bizarre and destructive one. However, we aren't bigoted against scientologists; rather, these people are victims of a terrible ideology that must be exposed for what it is. The only way to help protect humans against scientology is to disseminate the truth and educate others about the ideology. Perhaps one fortunate thing critics of scientology have on their side is that "Scientologophobia" is not a particularly catchy phrase. Therefore, critics of scientology don't have to worry about being unfairly attacked and branded with a word in their philanthropic efforts to help humanity as do critics of Islam. --ProtectWomen16:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. "Innocent members" doesn't make sense (and implies there is something very nasty about Islam) because Islam is not some sort of club where the members are unaware of the leaders' plans. There are no leaders in Islam. Fatwas aren't binding. If you've got a problem with the ideology, you've automatically got a problem with the practitioners, as the ideology is meaningless if no one applies it. By the way, critics of Scientology have to worry about being sued. Sazieltc20:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Limboot and ProtectWomen: I think it's becoming more clear to me what our point of disagreement is. Both of you assert that the term "Islamophobia" was invented to squelch criticisms of the practice of Islam. That's quite a conspiracy you're positing. I just don't see any evidence for it. The term (according to the article) orginated in 1976 from the Oxford English dictionary types, and the Runnymede people cited in the article seem to be (as are their donors) progressive, liberal British politicians, not some shadowy cabal of Saudi Arabian advocates.
Regardless of who coined the phrase, the definition of the phrase seems clear. I thought the dictionary.com reference would suffice to clarify the situation, but apparently not, as it is not an "important" enough dictionary. Is the OED important enough?
Protect Women: You said the term is illegitimate because "If one means to speak against anti-Muslim bigotry than they should have invented the term 'Muslimophobia' or perhaps 'Anti-Muslimism'." You seem to buying the Etymological Fallacy, similar to those that might argue that "Anti-Semitism" is a fallacious term becuase Arabs are semites, too.
The crux of our dispute seems to be the definition of the word "Islamophobia." I maintain the definition is irrational bigotry against Muslims, while some others maintain it has been defined as a smear against critics of Islam. This alternate definition has never been described as an accurate description of the term by any dictionary, right? If dictionary.com is insufficient, would the OED definition be authoritative? MarkB222:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, I got the New Oxford American Dictionary here..."Islamophobia (n): a hatred or fear of Islam or Muslims, especially when feared as a political force." Well. That's different. Perhaps we should describe different definitions of the term, instead of giving one definition and then calling it "controversial." MarkB201:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
What is controversial is not the definition, but the concept. The existance of prejudice against muslims is a controversial concept.--Sefringle02:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe he is saying that in certain instances acts labeled as anti-Muslim may not be that simple or even based on Islamophobic beliefs. In this case his personal views on the subject are not an extension of how we should proceed with editing this article and are therefore irrelevant. KazakhPol05:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Global template
Before you (anyone) remove the global template, please consider that the views mentioned in the introduction are:
Runnymede Trust - British think tank
Kenan Malik - British writer and academic
Salman Rushdie - British-Indian essayist and fiction author
Islamophobia and anti-semitism two kinds of the same coin ? Anti-semitism is because of etnic hate. "Islamophobia" is only critism on a "religion" (ideology). Shame your self !!! Limboot11:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually thay are simmilar. Judaism is also a religion (or "ideology" as you like to say). // Liftarn
Yes judaism is a religion. But all (etnic) Jews are not judaists. E.g. Albert Einstein was an atheist, not judaist. And hunderd of thousands of Jews who were killed in W.W. II because of antisemitism. Limboot12:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the tag placed on this article is unhelpful and unnecessary. The article is written from British sources, but there's nothing nationalist about the "arguments" it presents. New (or not much edited) articles are bound to suffer from this effect - that does not make them bad articles (nor does it make them POV). As far as I can tell, everything in this article could have been placed there by any nationality, using sources from quite different sources, and the result would still be a good article, like this one. The solution is to add more diverse (hopefully also better) material, not to criticise what is in there. (as of this moment, there is badly written Danish and Dutch material in there, which I hope someone improves or removes quite shortly).
Huh, it is a copy from dutch wiki. Do you understand what means "controversial" instead of acting with your prejudgements. Limboot08:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Dutch Wikipedia is not a reliable source. You simply can't butcher an article just to get your point accross. // Liftarn
Do you know where you are talking about ? Is an article of an author himself not reliable enough what he sees as "islamophobia" ?? Limboot09:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
It is only reliable as a source to what he thinks. // Liftarn
Of what he thinks ? "Islamophobia" is only a word. But are you a psychiatrist of what mr Efrain really thinks !!!! Limboot11:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Now you have reverted more than three times today - you're in violation of WP:3RR. // Liftarn
Are you not only a user? Nothing to find about admin or moderator at your userpage. And what is your I.Q. because of your writing that "islamophobia" (concerning a religion) is the same as "antisemitism" (etnic) ? Limboot 12:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
No personal attacks. Why are you defending the term islamophobia in the first place. And why should I not ask something because of the fact you cant see the difference between critism on a ideology and hate because of etnics. I didn't know Goebbels had been in discussion with 2 months old Jewish babies he killed in Auschwich ? Limboot12:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
This discussion because of this
Islamophobia is a controversial neologism. Defined by some as a prejudice against, or demonization of, Muslims.[14][15][16] Other people are seeying islamophobia as a controversial neologism introduced to characterise critics on islamic issues as an irrational and persistant fear (phobia) [13]. As a controversial neogolism the word islamophobia is not to find in e.g. the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary or Dutch Dikke van Dale, just like it's opposing controversial neogolism islamophilia.
Danish politician Bashy Quraishy have written that islamophobia and antisemitism are two sides of the same coin.[17]. Also according wikipedian definition also critism of judaism is characterized to antisemitism[18]
Of course the mods are to busy to delete the article in stead of discussing. Wikipedia insist on that definition of antisemitism. So take the consequence: islamophobia = antisemitism is no news, (according wiki of course) antisemitism —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Limboot (talk • contribs) 17:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC).
in fact if you really want to go deep into it, although nowadays the correct and accepted form for anti-judaism is anti-semitism, being anti-arabic is also technically a form of anti-semitism because arabs are semites, in fact although the Jews often consider themselves to be a different race AND religion, biologically they stem from the same race as the arabs do, though moving throughout the centuaries has distorted this semite component.
Since islam is based totally on the acceptance of the arabic language, and generally practiced amongst arabs, and most of the racism experienced by muslims is not based solely on their religion, but also where they come from, or are alleged to come from, and much of the ignorant terms used against them are often linking them to their arabic origins, then to some degree, prejudice against them should be considered racism to some degree at least (again considering arabic is such a an important focal point in islam, similar to hebrew in Judaism). To dismiss matters simply as so many do in this talk page by saying that islam is not a ratial thing, and ignorantly suggesting that its okay to be anti-islamist because these people have a choice to believe in islam is stupid and biased. Its made so much more ignorant by the fact I would suppose it would be the same people who are claiming that islam and politics are inseperably interlinked, if this is actually the case then most muslims would have very little choice as to what they would believe, although technicallly I personally dont believe they ar einter-linked. It is also made more ridiculous because the article is written from a western point of view of culture and religion, where for the last 100 year at least christians and others have had decreasing links with western culture, its just biased to act that everywhere culture and religion are kept seperate link in our (laregly) secular west. Culture in the middle east (even for those who are not muslims) is inseperably linked with islam, and so associating with these cultures often associates one with islam, if you just ignorantly suppose that people in these cultures dont have to associate at all with islam (even christians and jews do to an extent) but can still function within many islamic cultures you are quite mistaken. Racial issues and islam are very interlinked in the middle east (although intolerance of other religions is not always the case) and so being islamic also implies you are part of a race, not just arabic, and Israel's foreign policy would be inclined to agree with this idea. By trying to dismiss prejudice against those who follow islam (who by the fact they have CHOSEN to follow islam they do not believe there is another way of life which is right for them) just by saying 'oh its a religion, they can choose', in such an ignorant manor is ridiculous, I think we westerners are inclined to do this because of the way we view christianity, but in actual fact the rules of islam have much more bearing (in order to be considered a memeber of islam) on the lifestyle of a person than either christianity or Judaism, so in a sense islam is a culture, and a culture implies race.
Is this a rhetorical question? You have been here (Wikipedia) for a pretty long time now. Why would you ask whether or not it exists when you can plainly see it does? Are you trying to make a point?KazakhPol22:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello, as I read through this article, I was struck by the degree to which the article is dedicated to ideas criticle of the very concept that anti-Islamic sentiment can exist. In fact, the article seems to question the reality of discrimination against individuals and minority groups of people who are Muslim. I believe this needs to be discussed, and I added the appropriate tag by which to garnish the needed attention. Padishah500000:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I concur. When both Dictionary.com and the Oxford American Dictionary define "Islamophobia" essentially the same way it is ridiculous to write a wikipedia article saying "some say it is defined this way," but we can't just relay that information because Salman Rushdie and Kenin Malik think the issue is exaggerated or confused. The BBCand here routinely uses the word in the received manner, as does the National Review, the AP, CNN, Newsweek, you name it. But a little group of writers get together and say the term is misused and overused and suddenly we can't even define the term. I wonder if I wandered over to the antisemitism page and called the entire "concept" of antisemitism "controversial" how they would take that. If you actually read Malik, by the way, he doesn't deny that the prejudice exists, he just thinks the term is overused and misused. MarkB220:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
What is the point that "islamophobia" should not be called as one site of the same coin as antisemitism NOW ANTISEMITISM IS MISUSED AS THE SAME AS CRITISM ON JUDAIC RELIGION ("antisemitism is critism on jews as a religious group (instead of an etnic and racial group). See antisemitism. POV Tag there even deleted so critism on judaism religion is for the fully 100 % seen as "antisemitism" !!!!! Limboot20:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
No, antisemitism is prejudice against Jews as a race, and someimes against jews as a religous group. There is a difference between prejudice and criticism. Prejudice against a religion means persecution or hatrid of a person becasue of their race/religion. Criticism of a religion is just presenting arguements for why a religion is stupid or evil; it is not the same as saying all people of a certian religion are stupid or evil.--Sefringle14:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
There is a very fine line between criticism and prejudice. The current article appears to be an example of that. Padishah500007:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
If your sure anti-semitism against Jews as a race, you should be prepared to accept that your being racist to arabs as a race, as arabs are semitic people's. in fact in today's termanology anti-semitism is meant to apply only for anti-Judaism, if you try to enlarge that so its ratial then arabs should also be included in the defenition.
Use of "Weasel Words" Within the Article Islamophobia
Alleged (along with allegedly) and purported (along with purportedly) are different from the foregoing in that they are generally used by those who genuinely have no predisposition as to whether the statement being cited is true or not. Newspapers, for instance, almost universally refer to any indicted but unconvicted criminal as an alleged criminal. Therefore, there is no neutrality problem with using them. However, there may be a problem of ambiguity—they should only be used where the identity of the alleger is clear.
It is perfectly acceptable, indeed NPOV demands, that we use "alleged Islamaphobia" to title sections that list allegations of Islamaphobic entities or acts where the identities of allegers are stated (and they are stated here). A title like "Publications and publishers known to be Islamophobic" is just unacceptable, since it states allegations as fact. - Merzbow23:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. I believe the use of such words as alleged is a direct POV violation, and should not be allowed in the article. I also was unable to find the Wikipedia policy guideline that you cited. I believe in keeping the Wikipedia project as bias free as possible, and when such words are used, it appears to me to detract from the overall purpose of the project. 71.107.126.19605:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Merzbow on this one. Alleged needs to be here to be NPOV, since this topic is very controversial. What is islamophobic and what is not is highly disputed, and as such, alleged is needed for NPOV. And annon, please sign in.--Sefringle05:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The issue is quite simple. When something is presented as an allegation and not as a fact in the text, then the heading must also present it as an allegation and not as a fact. It is absurd to suggest otherwise. - Merzbow05:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. This article does use questionable terminology(amongst other things). The use of the term -alleged- has been inserted for the sole purpose of raising a doubt in the reader's mind that Islamophobia(a fancy word for anti-Islamic sentiment) even exists in Europe. In fact, this articles written message appears to be the belief that anti-islamic attitudes may not even exist. Padishah500007:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Merzbow. May PalestineRemembered criticise Islam? Alleged means "charges have been credibly asserted", but it also means "charges have not been proven". WP:BLP says it's vital that people not be slurred. We run the risk of stifling debate and helping to create a "thought-crime". PalestineRemembered17:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it is a kind of silly to use "alleged" in the title, and it fails to be "neutral" (if such would be the intention of the article). Instead the article should demonstrate the real meaning and application of the word. Rokus0109:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Acceptable use of the word alleged, as per WP:WTA, absolutely must adhere to the policy of verifiability from reliable sources if it is to remain neutral and neither synthesis or original research. That is to say, it is not for editors to maintain the allegation or infer an allegation, but to confer that the allegation was reported elsewhere (e.g. Source X reports that Subject A is an alleged islamophobe). And what's with the warring on the {{controversy}} tag? - Tiswas(t)09:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
A section that contains nothing but allegations of acts of Islamaphobia cannot be named "Acts of Islamaphobia", I think we can agree on that. So what's the alternative if "Alleged acts of Islamaphobia" is out of the question? We may be forced to choose between the lesser of two evils here - and the lesser evil is always to accurately convey doubt where doubt exists, not to side 100% with those making allegations by presenting their worldview as fact (that the acts of Islamaphobia described in the section did indeed occur). - Merzbow17:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Header
Could we come to a consensus as to eliminating the whole "defined by some" line from the header? "Islamophobia" is in the OED. In fact, it's in every dictionary that's been published in the last decade. It's used in the received manner in every major news outlet in the Western World. Case closed.
Could we also get Malik and Salman Rushdie's criticism of the term out of the header? They have their space in the criticism section. MarkB214:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
s/defined by some/defined by an overwhelming majority/ - Without trawling through the history, have any other definitions been attributed to reliable sources? (I know that there have been more than a few flakey definitions.) If not, I see no issue - A definition can hardly be held to be POV if it is the only V that can be supported. If there is a significant (and verifiable) minority (no pun intended), an entry in the main article space might be worth considering. - Tiswas(t)14:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I think I've waited long enough. I'm removing the weasel words "defined by some" and simply replacing them with the OED definition. I'm also getting Malik and Rushdie's criticisms out of the header. MarkB202:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose see section above. Islamophobia is controversial, and the criticism belongs in this article. Alleged needs to be in the introduction, and so does the fact that islamophobia is controversial. --Sefringle03:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Jesus Christ, Sefringle. I leave the comments out there for thirteen days and no one besides Tiswas says anything, then I do the edit and you revert it within three hours. You had THIRTEEN DAYS to say something!
Calling it "controversial" is fine, but I don't see why a few writers who think the term is misused deserve to have 45% of the header (by word count) criticizing it. A couple of sentences should do. Something like "Many British writers have criticized the use of the term. Among them, Salman Rushdie and Kenan Malik have asserted that the term "confuses criticism of Islam as a religion and stigmatization of those who believe in it." MarkB206:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose As mention before on this discussion page, the notable criticism of the concept makes it a plain fact that it is indeed controversial. According to policy, the notable criticism that has been raised against the concept should of course also be mentioned in the lead section. -- Karl Meier18:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Agree There doesn't seems to be much controversy surrounding the definition, only criticism of how the term can be used to stifle freedom of speech. I also agree that the weight given to the criticism in the header is excessive and in fact repeats what is given in the article. A summary of the extent and nature of the criticism should be enough.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Umer Al-Amerikee (talk • contribs)
Karl, I'm not sure you understood what I was proposing. I wasn't suggesting removing the criticism from the "lead section," just trimming it. MarkB213:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
If that was your proposal, your edit showed a different intention. In your edit, you completely removed it.--Sefringle05:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
After reading this article and reviewing Wikipedia’s policies on NPOV, NOR, RS, RELY, I think the much of the article is problematic. In fact, a lot of the article seems to be a thinly disguised debate between individuals who believe that Islamophobia is a problem and those who do not. As such, I would say that most of the article violates the NOR policy since it brings together published material, including primary sources, in order to bolster one point of view or another instead of relying on “published materials with a reliable publication process(es).”
“The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position”
“Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.”
“Malik cites Yasmin Alibhai Brown, who writes: "It is not Islamophobia that makes parents take 14 year old bright girls out of school to marry illiterate men ..." Malik argues that Islamophobia is not a form of racism because Islam is a belief system. "I can be hateful about other beliefs, such as conservatism or communism. So why can't I be hateful about religion too?"[11]”
I find this passage problematic because while the actual quote is sourced, the material in the quote is not. Including it in this context implies that the religion of Islam is somehow responsible for unidentified illiterate men marrying unidentified 14 year old girls with the permission of their unidentified parents. Who are these men? Who are these girls? How is Islam responsible? The quote simply drags Yasmin Alibhai Brown’s unsupported opinion into the article. It’s unclear to me if her quote is from “credible published materials with a reliable publication process.” Umer Al-Amerikee01:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
"by some"
this is a good example of weasel wording, even more so as it's in the first sentence. the Runnymede trust doesn't dispute that it's a characterisation of anti-Muslim or anti-Islam sentiment, so inserting such clauses to obscure the notion of agreement over its definition is unencyclopedic. ITAQALLAH21:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
As it seems that the consensus currently against including "by some" in the intro section, I will expand it to include the more broad definitions of the concept. -- Karl Meier06:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I will. It will have to mention that the concept also include political opposition to and criticism of Islam. I will work a bit on the wording and include it later today. -- Karl Meier06:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Obvious an article written by mainly English/American people, but what do you expect?
Im a British christian, so don't anyone assume Im stating this because I have some pro-muslim bias, but its pretty dam obvious this article is written from an American and British POV, when I originally thought this was a world encyclopidia, maybe it isnt, and mabye it is meant to contain information from a purely American and British general perspective of ignorance and prejudice, I honestly dont know, but I though if an encylopidia was meant to be one thing it wasn't mean tto be ignorant in aproach to writing its articles. There are several thiings wrong with this article, but the main one I think is probably the fact that whereas the term islamophobia is (loosely) defined as soon as we hit the criticism section its implied it dosen't exsist, and is always used as a 'stupid' insult from people who don't know any bettter insulting intellectually correct people who (it can be assured) are always correct and their criticism of islamophobia must have no personal bias, simply because they are so obviously intelligent. Why the numerous references of critics of islamophobia in this article are treated as if they are omniscient infallible beings I have no idea, but despite the writer's own views I think it is important to realise the scope of prejudice against islam (unjustified I mean) which exsists, period. Whether this is islampohobia is a matter of dispute, although I think the term islamophobia often refers to anti-islamic prejudice, I think the main defenition of phobia being an IRRATIONAL fear. The article should constantly be written as If though islamophobia is just a way 'stupid' people criticise people who criticise their religion and then go on a lengthy explanation saying just how islamophobia is a way of shutting up critics (without giving another POV) and then imply it has no links to anti-islamic prejudice, and then saying 'oh wait scrap that, It dosent exsist anyway so theres no debate here'.
Now although the article isn't written quite as simply as that it is obvious to me it only gives half the story and uses weasel words all the way through the article, to bad its not obvious to all us westerners who (all to frequently, in my opinion which no one cares about) write these articles as if were in the 19th centuary studying a particularily intresting but stupid species of bird, and then implying how primitive and backwards these different cultures are because they don't share our western perspective or morals, and how we in the west have the right to judge other cultures because we are so impeccable in our actions and behaviour all the time, and how the west's view of the world is viewed as the 'right one'. I am no homophobic, but as some overpersonal guy wrote up to somewhere he views islam as a threat because he is part of a sexual minority (I assume, possibly wrongly your homosexual). Now although islam sometimes may be viewed as WRONGLY prejudiced agaisnt homosexuals(from the wests POV, and mine), that dosent neccessarily mean that we are better (and more correct neccessarily) than people in these countries because we are more liberal to homosexuality, and we can look at them like primitive ants through a magnifying glass, its all a POV, which wikipedia whoudl be free of. As long as there is no homophobic comments in wikipedia I don't see it as neccessary to look at other societies as more primitive because they are less liberal to homosexuals (who knows ultimately what is right and wrong, despite their own opinions). Now this may seem as jsut off point and one example, but I think this kind of overly (morally correct? is the word/s) highground we westerners sometimes take should not be transferred into any wikipedia article, much less one about prejudice.
sorry about my spelling, I am dyslexic, feel free to correct me if you so wish.
P.S. Im writing this a little later than the above entery, I just wanted to say a lot of the writing on this page is a waste of perfectly useful binary code. ProtectWomen (as some others) obviously has some issues with islam personally, it may be possibly due to her/his name that I can glean why, but I thought (in my humble opinion) the editors of wikipedia (in fact any encylclopedia) were meant to leave any personal opinions of topics out of the spectrum. If you want to make a site that says 'Islam is a religion where its practitioners believe in raping and beating women every day, then doing it during the night, and they also hate gays, but I dont think muslims are bad im just saying that their religion and their beliefs suck' then you may do this if you wish (but on a personal note I may narrow down the title) however whatever you may think of a religion (and what you think of a religion, whichever way you cover it up or portray it, invariably reflects on your opinion of the belivers of that religion, because to a greater or lesser degree they will invariably follow the teachings of that religion) is not relevant (or so I think, excuse the bracket spam) to wikipedia. Opinions about whether islamophobia is just a way of people silencing criticism, of those most invariably respectable and intelligent right-wingers (who not for a second would contemplate prejudice or intollerance), against islam is purely a matter of opinion and is not waht this article is about, the mention that islamophobia is seen sometimes as a way of silencing criticism should not take up more than a paragraph, and the fact it dosen't betrays the POV of most of the editors here. The Islamophobia article should be mainly about what is deemed as islamophobia, and who is generally seen to have commited it (as it is seen as an act of prejudice), the criticism section should be little more than a passing note, if you are neutral you should have no problem with this, as long as criticism is show without the article turning mainly into 'Criticism of islamophobia termanology', If you wish to have debates as to why islam sucks in your opinion go on some republican website somewhere.
PS., PS. protectwomen, just so you know, wikipedia is probably not the best place for you if you wish to campaign for women's rights, that should probably done on a charity website or something, maybe debating one (ive got no problem with women's rights or with you, just agaisnt wikipedia possibly being distorted to be used for campaigning, where its purpose is to inform objectively). Also, although constantly under the media spotlight as a religion which is totally against womens rights, and which advocates locking women in a closet for 300 years+, islam was actually possibly the first religion to accept that women had rights as such, well before Judaism and christianity in the west. Also I think you should know (im telling you this not just from statistics, but from personal knowledge, being an objective, generally, British citizen) that, at least in the UK, and many other more liberal muslim countries like Lebanon, Jordan, Iran etc (though maybe not in Pakistan, Saudi, two American sponsored areas btw) many muslim women would feel patronized and offended to be told they are treated terribly by their husbands and submit to islam because their husbands make them, many muslim women choose to live the way they do with their intelligent female brains which by your name I can tell you believe in. Just because they don't live the same lives as we do in the west it dosen't mean they live horrible lives, or don't liek the way they live. Whereas in the west it is usual for women often to be considered sex-objects, and get goggled at constantly, many women In the middle east prefer the greater (often though not always, in areas such as pakistan which has its own problems not wholly caused by islam)
respect given to them in the sense they are treated as though there are other things to them except their physical body's. Now whether you may think this is right or wrong is completly a matter of opinion, but when looking at thes topics its important to remebr that just because something seems restrictive and wrong in our society, sometimes people in other societies prefer thing the way they are, and wouldnt testify to them being restrictive at all, jsut different. If you want to find a common enemy that is against women's rights you should possibly pick on women beaters in the USA and the UK and Europe, as there are enough of them t be getting on with, then afterwards you can sart picking on theones in other cultures (just so you know much of the oppression found in some arab nations, is infact not a product of islam but simply cultural tradition, as is female circumcision which takes place in mainly christian societies in Africa).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.207.67.140 (talk)
Thank you for your comment. I totally agree, that some articles are written from an American and British POV. This comes from the fact, that content decisions are done by "democratic means" (should I say "mob rule") although Wikipedia is not a democracy. Unfortunately even administrators are indeed biased and some won't hesitate to block you to get their (content) decision through. I once compiled a list of blocks, which I considered unfair. In the end, the list got deleted and I got blocked for writing it.--Raphael100:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
If you signed your edits (with ~~~~), you wouldn't need to explain the chronology of your edits. Either way - The article needs to remain neutral, with verifiedinformation - It is not a place for synthesis, opionating, grandstanding or soapboxing. Or, put less tactfully, is doesn't matter what you think on the subject, just that you can report what others think, and that you can back it up, and do so dispassionately. - Tiswas(t)15:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Huh I didnt think I was the one who wasn't writing neutrally or dispassionately, or from an obviously western standpoint which places our perspective as westerner's above those of arabs and those who are muslims. I may not have been totally serious, nor totally happy about the way this article is written, or some of the ignorant and unthinking comments ive seen on this talkpage, but that dosen;t make what I've said wrong. I totally agree with you this article whould be written dispassionately, but are the examples of people mentioned all experts on sociology? Another thing, this article is obviously written from a standpoitn that Islamophobia and to a degree Xenophobia against those who follow islam is okay, im totally agaisnt that way of potrying things from one POV, its to bad not everyone is.172.207.67.14016:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I’m not sure why the passage “Islamophobia manifests itself in a number of ways, ranging from discrimination and verbal threats to physical attacks on the persons and property of Muslims or people perceived as Muslims. [19]” was removed. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary gives several definitions of the word ”definition.” The most appropriate in this context are “a statement expressing the essential nature of something; a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol;” and “the action or the power of describing, explaining, or making definite and clear.” By none of these definitions should the passage be excluded from the section on definitions.
Also, why was the passage “Malik cites Yasmin Alibhai Brown, who writes: "It is not Islamophobia that makes parents take 14 year old bright girls out of school to marry illiterate men ..." restored to the article. No discussion was really provided. As I indicated on May 26, 2007 it is not properly sourced.Umer Al-Amerikee01:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to say, It may not count what I personally think, but I don't need sources to prove that this article is inherently biased against the mere concept of islamophobia, I thought wikipedia articles were meant to be neutral, just because Im giving another POV does that make me the biased one? I mean this article and the way it is written demostrates why, wikipedia was called 'broken beyond repair' by one of the guys up top (chief editior was it? something liek that). I mean wikipedia dosen't rely on intelligence to write its articles, it relies on unjustified bias and ignorance and the majority personal opinion of people who don't know what they are talking about, but it nver said it was anything else anyway.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.214.9.67 (talk) -Oh one other thing, forgive the speeling I have some issues Disabled Illuminati12:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Karl, regarding your query about Hasan, he is a scholar (albeit a junior one); his paper was published; it is interesting, intelligent, and informative. In fact, it's the only decent argument (argument, as opposed to polemic) in the article.
I thought we had an agreement about this. I made some concession a few weeks ago on a number of issues, as did you, and we reached a compromise. Are you going back on it? SlimVirgin(talk)18:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
No, of course not. My intention was only to encourage you to clarify your position on this issues here. On second thought, actually, I want to stay out of this discussion. -- Karl Meier21:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a "compromise" here. This is an encyclopedia. I too can start making deals about comprising this and that, but what we'll be compromising in the end is the quality of the encyclopedia. Hasan is non-notable, period. How is he a junior scholar of Islam? Are junior scholars of Islam Reliable Sources? How am I not a junior scholar too? See? We have to abide by RS and notability. The point is: It doesnt matter how interesting an opinion is. If its not a RS and if the subject is not notable, it cant be included. More so, the opinion is nothing new. Please read WP:RS, which says: Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Tell me how Jehanzeb is trustworthy and authoritative in relation to the subject of Islam. --Matt57(talk•contribs)19:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Surely we can all agree that the photo has to go? Who are/what is Media Monitors Network? We don't seem to have an article on them. When you said "published" I assumed you meant in an academic journal. --Coroebus19:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
RfC on Hasan paper
For anyone coming here from the RfC, the issue is whether Jehanzeb Hasan, a research assistant at California State University, can be used as a source. Some editors here are arguing that he is not "notable" enough to be used as a source. Other editors say that, even though he is not a senior or notable Islamic scholar, he is an academic and a specialist, albeit a junior one, and is therefore a reliable source. WP:V says we must use reliable sources, not notable ones; that is, a source does not need to be sufficiently notable to warrant a WP article before we can use them as a source.
Hasan's paper provides an interesting and intelligent rejoinder to criticism of Islamophobia (i.e. he is arguing that Islamophobia does exist), and his particular arguments can't be found elsewhere. His paper was published by the Media Monitors Network [5] and is used as the basis for this section. The Media Monitors Network is a media-monitoring website that, according to its FAQ, relies on public donations and the proceeds from book sales. [6] It is not a particularly notable website, but it appears to employ staff, so it doesn't appear to be a personal website, and it's therefore WP:V-compliant.
Some editors have been removing Hasan's views for months. Any input that would help to resolve the dispute would be much appreciated. SlimVirgin(talk)19:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
So: would you agree that Abul Kasem, an ex-Muslim from Bangladesh who has written much more widely on Islam than has Jehanzeb Hasan, deserves more inclusion in Wikipedia than Hasan? This same question is for you too, SlimVirgin. --Matt57(talk•contribs)20:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you should point out which reliable source this person has used as an avenue to publish his work (because FFI doesn't count). And I hope the Google search isn't being used to prove some sort of notability on the part of this person; "Abul Kasem" is not a rare name. Ibn Shah21:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
My point, if you missed: Apply the same questions you asked to this Jehanzeb Hasan, whose opinions SlimVirgin and ItaqAllah are trying to insert into Wikipedia. --Matt57(talk•contribs)21:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
You cannot compare a person who may have self-published his work in several unreliable sources to a person who has published his work in a reliable one. To take this problem even further, if someone told me that I could not use the findings of an article that was published in an academic journal because the authors are not notable, I would probably find that laughable. Now this source may not be an academic journal but the administrator does contend that it is a reliable one, nonetheless. Ibn Shah21:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I dont think that "Reliable source" about J. Hasan is any more reliable than the websites where Abul Kasem's articles have been published. And Abul Kasem's work is also 'self-published' (as you claimed) like Jehanzeb Hasan's article. Lets not forget the opinions of Ali Sina who is probably a 1000 times more notable than Jehanzeb here. Ali has even debated with the Grand Ayotollah Montezeri and he has had independent coverage in a lot of places. If Jehanzeb's non-notable one-paper opinion is going to be given any attention here, I suppose there shouldnt be any problem in inserting Ali's opinions into articles on Islam. --Matt57(talk•contribs)21:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Does that make everyone who has corresponded with Ayatullah Montazeri notable? Islamic leaders (and the people who work in their offices) correspond with thousands of people. Ibn Shah22:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Plus, this Media Monitors website which SlimVirgin is pushing does belong to a single person (notice the First person usage) so yes, it is a one-person website, contrary to what she is asserting. And here, no surprise! It belongs to a Muhammad Ali Khan (Chief Editor & Founder MMN). What a surprise! lol. I knew there was something going on here. I wonder if Muhammad Ali Khan would ever agree on letting Ali Sina write for his website. I doubt he would even reply, with the refusal to publish his articles. So yes, this is a single person website (I wonder how SlimVirgin got to assume that it has a staff) and I believe he is collecting pro-Islamic articles from pro-Islamic people. If thats the case, then the FFI website is equivalent to the Media Monitors, and we should allow here the opinions of all editors who contribute to the FFI website. But this could easily be a non-single person website. The issue again is: This person J. Hasan, is simply not a RS on Islam. If this passes, we could start contributing in not only Ali Sina's opinions on Islam here, but also of his many editors who contribute to the FFI website. As far as I can see, all articles on Muhammad Ali Khan's website are pro-Islamic. This is not a surprise. The website Media Monitors belongs to a Muslim (Muhammad Ali Khan). --Matt57(talk•contribs)21:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I cannot vouch for this website's reliability or notability; I don't know anything about it. I'm just going on the information provided by the people in this discussion. Ibn Shah22:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, well, SlimVirgin asserted that Media Monitors is not a single person and I proved her wrong. What is your opinion now? Should content from MM be included or not? If yes, why shouldnt content from FFI be included too? --Matt57(talk•contribs)22:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
People here seemed to agree that it could be included, but needed to be cut in length. I therefore cut it from three paragraphs to one, but Matt has removed it again. [8] Matt, please read the policies. Sources don't need to be "notable," but do need to be "reliable." It's not the same thing. If you have evidence that the website is run by one person, please produce it because that could make a difference. Otherwise, there's no current reason to remove that material. SlimVirgin(talk)01:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
And has even removed a link to his article from the further reading section, [9] which there are no grounds in policy to do that I'm aware of. SlimVirgin(talk)01:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'm new to this discussion, but I have to say I'm very surprised to find someone like SlimVirgin advocating that such a marginal point of view be included in a topic such as this. There are many people who are puclicly Islamophobic, including Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Afshin Ellian, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, but we don't fill the article with quotes from these people, even though they publish in what can certainly be considered to be reliable sources.. Wikipedia is not meant to be a battleground in the "culture wars" and I would implore SlimVirgin and others to refrain from engaging on this front. JACOPLANE • 2007-06-1 01:22
To be honest, the article skirts the edge of reliability, based on the junior credentials of the author and the dubiousness of the publication. On balance, I still wouldn't object to a one paragraph summary, but I won't fight if others don't want it at all. - Merzbow01:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, you really are going on a path, which will lead to editors from Ali Sina's website also being used in Wikipedia. Is that ok with you? Here's the proof its a one-man show. I gave it to you already above, if you had read what I had written in this discussion. The founder and chief editor of the website is a Muslim, Muhammad Ali Khan. The other link I gave you says stuff like "Send the article to me and "I" will make sure ....... ". If a website talks like that, I suppose "I" refers to one person. This however is not a problem. The article is available on this website too, which is probably not one-person. The issue again is that J. Hasan is not a RS for matters on Islam. I'm repeating myself here again. RS says: " their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." My question to you is: Is J. Hasan considered an authority on Islam? No. Yes, someone rightfully took the picture out and I took the rest of the content out again. Even if a single line is used from J. Hasan, I will ask again: if this person's opinions are allowed, why shouldnt Ali Sina's opinions be allowed in Islam related articles? Lets have consensus to use both J. Hasan and Ali Sina's opinions; that will be fine with me. Is that a deal? Please dont miss my links this time.
Jaco, I too was very surprised when I saw SlimVirgin, contacting an unknown XYZ graduate assistant for his photo, putting his photo and article here, captioning the picture to highlight his opinion, when he has 0 authority on the subject of Islam. This is just like me, contacting my friends who are also graduate assistants, and publish their opinion on Wikipedia on subject matters they have no authority over. Seeing this drive from SlimVirgin to include this unknown graduate assistant's opinion is especially shocking considering the fact that she's an administrator. --Matt57(talk•contribs)01:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I think I tried to do just what you, SlimVirgin, prescribed, and I resent the allegation that I personally attacked you, since I feel I did no such thing. I'll just reiterate what I've said above, which is that there are many Islamphobes who could potentially be used (though their publishing in so-called "reliable sources") to turn this article into an atheist wet dream. But someone like you should know better, and you should know that on a subject such as this we as a community should be especially careful, and from what I've seen from your other contributions to Wikipedia, you are perfetly aware of this... Pleaase utilise the sense of judgement that you obviousy have and refrain from accusing people like me from acting in bad faith.. JACOPLANE • 2007-06-1 02:20
<---The link you supplied leads to a description of the website written by Muhammad Ali Khan, who says he is the editor. Do you have any evidence that there is no-one else involved in it? If so, that still wouldn't necessarily make it a non-reliable source; but then it would depend entirely on Hasan's credentials, and whether he would count as the kind of self-published source allowed under WP:V. But first, please let me know if you have any solid evidence that this is a personal website. SlimVirgin(talk)01:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I said he was the CHIEF editor AND founder. I have given you all the evidence that its a single person affair. You have given me none that its a multi-person affair:
Muhammad Ali Khan (Chief Editor & Founder MMN), as specified on the about MMN page.
Even if its a two person website, so what? It still has to fulfil RS. J. Hasan is not an RS. WP:V specifies that it must be a RS: "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. So yes, basically, you'll have to provide the credentials of J. Hasan in order for him to be included here. Needless to say, "graduate assistant" wont do it. --Matt57(talk•contribs)01:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
If this turns out to be a personal website, then we'll have to rely on Hasan, so I will e-mail him and ask him what his background is, and whether he's been published elsewhere on this topic. I'll also try to find out more about the website. SlimVirgin(talk)02:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
As ridiculous as Matt57's accusations on my talk page may be, his arguments here make sense. It would not be right to use this source unless it can be further established that "Media Monitors Network" or Hasan are reliable. Ibn Shah02:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, remember, the information you will have to bring will have to be verifiable by us and everyone here must agree that J. Hasan is a RS for Islamic issues before any part of the content is allowed back in, no matter what he tells you in his email. Otherwise anyone could email Ali Sina and so many other apostates for their background in Islam and start inserting their opinions here as well. As you can see even Ibn Shah is not agreeing with you. Again, it came as a complete shock for me to see an administrator defending insertion of an unknown graduate assistant's opinions and his passport photo. He simply is not an authority on Islam, which is what the policy WP:RS requires. --Matt57(talk•contribs) 02:10, 1 June 20:07 (UTC)
Alright, well. If you get J Hasan in, I'll ask your help some time in getting Ali Sina and a couple of other people in too. --Matt57(talk•contribs)02:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
i was under the impression that Mr. Hasan was a research assistant in Islamic studies, not English. we must ascertain on what basis he can be considered authoritative enough to be used in this article. at the same time, we should apply the same standards uniformly and remove neurologist Kenan Malik's opinions, or the opinions of the unremarkable columnist Josie Appleton, and so on. ITAQALLAH17:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
ItaqAllah, ofcourse not. Hasan is just another unremarkable simple Graduate assistant, grading student's homework assignments ...
SlimVirgin, simply, if he had any qualification in Islam, it would be mentioned where his article is being used on that Muslim website (Media Monitors). But you said you were going to find out for sure, so please do so. Hasan's picture will probably not be able to reenter this article again. And ItaqAllah, Malik is 100 times more notable than this Graduate Assistant, one reason is that he has his own article.--Matt57(talk•contribs)18:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Matt, you have to stop making these deductions. You might be right, but someone's being a "research assistant" doesn't mean "someone who marks homework." Also, please note that WP:BLP applies to talk pages, so it's probably best to stop posting about this. SlimVirgin(talk)18:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, you should not attempt again to defend Hasan's inclusion here until you have done what you said you would do, i.e. find out if Hasan fulfils WP:RS or not. Until you do so, the entry of J. Hasan will be on hold. For the record, you have attempted to delete a notable person's opinion (Rowan) on this article, but have attempted to introduce and defend the inclusion of a non-notable Graduate Assistant's opinion. Make sure you read WP:RS and WP:V. --Matt57(talk•contribs)19:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
ItaqAllah, huh? First of all, Rowan is not an XYZ Graduate Assitant working in some university. He's notable to have his own article. In ADDITION: Rowan Atkinson, the comedian, led a coalition of Britain's most prominent actors and writers to Parliament today in an attempt to force a review of a controversial Bill designed to combat racial and religious hatred. - This is very notable in context to this article. --Matt57(talk•contribs)19:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
the 'notability' of a person alone, especially when it isn't related to the subject in question, does not make material worthy of inclusion. Atkinson isn't a reliable source - as i am sure you would agree. not only that, Atkinson's tangental comments are not even specifically related to the discussion. ITAQALLAH19:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Previously, you were agreeing on putting Hasan's opinion in, without knowing who this guy is. Now you're saying we should take out these other people's opinions out too. Not knowing who this Hasan is, or how he is important enough to be considered here, why did you support his inclusion before? --Matt57(talk•contribs)18:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I recall seeing an interview on PBS where views similar to Hasan's were put forth by a more notable person. I think that the views are valuable and need to be included, but it would help to have a more notable spokesperson for those views. I also have a problem with "Osamaism," which is a neologism, and Wikipedia doesn't actually have an article on it -- it's just a redirect to "Osama bin Ladin." I think the point to be stressed is that Islam, just like Christianity and Judaism, is a religion of peace, but there are unfortunately a lot of nut cases who profess to be Muslims (and Jews, and Christians.) --Marvin Diode02:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Often times novel ideas and concepts come from individuals who have not published multiple times. What I would include also as a standard for judging, beyond the policies of Wikipedia, is the uniqueness of expert's comments. Does it add to the article in an intelligent manner. Note that just because it is different or outlandish does not indicate it should be included. My standard is validity to the dicussion or topic.
As an aside, I reject arguments such as "if you include him then I get to include xyz"; x does not equal y. Further it is a negotiating style based in intimidation, which I find repugnant for Wikipedia. My intention is not to insult you, but to put some light on an inappropriate position for discussion. --Storm Rider(talk)07:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Recent disagreements
I'm on the verge of filing an RfAr on all the anti-Islam accounts that edit here, because some of these edits go beyond anything that could be called reasonable.
First sentence: "Islamophobia is, literally, "fear of Islam" though the term can be used for a variety of purposes, and is sometimes used to criticize people opposed to Islam."
Not a mention of what the term is actually used for: prejudice against Muslims and Islam!
Now, maybe the prejudice allegation is wrong-headed. Maybe it's just criticism of a religion. These are all solid arguments and should be made in the lead (as they are). But not even to allow the term's normal use to be described up front is absurd. This is a behavior issue, not a content dispute, and it's been brewing for a long time.
I appeal to the editors who tend to focus on editing criticism of Islam to be more moderate in your approach, and to allow words to mean what they mean, even if you think the concept is silly. SlimVirgin(talk)20:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
It will be hard to have any serious and productive discussions here, if you continue to violate Wikipedias no personal attacks policy. Please stop this behavior and quite referring to your fellow editors as "anti-Islam" accounts and what not. I don't see anyone here being impolite to you or calling you any names, so just a little bit of civility would be in it's place. As for article, it is a fact that Islamophobia refer to much more than just prejudice against Muslims. For example, the Runnymede Trust definition also include "rejecting Islams criticism of the West out of hand". How is rejecting Islam's criticism of the West prejudice against Muslims? Or how is seeing it as a political ideology, used for political or military advantage demonization of Muslim? The obvious answer is of course, that this doesn't make sense. What I just mentioned is criticism of Islam, and it is also political and moral rejection of Islam. The article including the articles first sentences should reflect the reality that the concept of Islamophobia is defined by important sources not just as prejudice against Muslims, but also as criticism and rejection of Islam. -- Karl Meier20:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The word "antisemite" is used primarily to criticize antisemites, but it still refers to a prejudice. Come on. You have to stick to what the reliable sources say. You're trying to undermine this word from the very first sentence. SlimVirgin(talk)20:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I am sticking to the reliable sources, and the very definition by Runnymede Trust include criticism of and/or rejection of Islam. -- Karl Meier20:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, I would also like to file a RfAr on you for trying to include the graduate assistant's opinion here, who again has no notability for himself, or for his opinions or qualifications on Islamic issues. That too was definitely not reasonable, right? And as Karl pointed, refrain from Personal attacks by calling editors as "anti-Islamic". --Matt57(talk•contribs)20:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
In the end, I think we have to remove anyone from this article, who is not a RS for this article. Clearly, a graduate assistant is not worthy of inclusion here, because if thats allowed, then I'll call up all my graduate assistant friends to write up an article in reply to Hasan, and you can see that will never end. Therefore, we have to decide and follow policies firmly on a case by case basis. Hasan for sure gets a boot from this article. --Matt57(talk•contribs)21:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that we all calm down a bit and stop throwing threats and mud around here. It is not productive and we might just risk that the article will be protected again. The definitions that we have included and the references in the "public discourse" section makes it obvious that one of the definitions of the concept is indeed "prejudice against Muslims". However, it is also a fact that some of the definitions that we use as references include more than just that, and the material in the "public discourse" section also provide a lot of evidence that the concept is also being used to characterize critics of Islam and criticism of Islam as a religion. I am sure that we can work out a lead section that mention all the important parts of the definitions and include how the concept is being used. I am also sure that we can work towards and reach some reasonable compromise on this. -- Karl Meier21:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, Karl, but please note that this has gone on for far too long and people have had enough. The result is poorly written articles and sensible editors being driven away. It has happened over multiple articles, with multiple accounts (though I'm guessing often the same editors) for around two years now. Again, I appeal to those editors to exercise self-restraint or the ArbCom will have to become involved. SlimVirgin(talk)22:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, you're one of them. Look, when things have reached the point where you're not allowed to say of Islamophobia that it's a term used to describe prejudice against Muslims, then you know things have gone too far. Islamophobia is not primarily known as a term used to describe "critics of Islam," just as antisemitism doesn't describe "critics of Jews," and racism doesn't describe "critics of Blacks."
Some editors on this page seem to be arging that there is no such thing as prejudice against Muslims, which is clearly absurd. If you admit that such prejudice exists, well ... the name for it is Islamophobia, so please stop trying to change the English language. SlimVirgin(talk)23:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
SlimVirgin: Please be careful about that straw man. Who has argued that there is no such thing as prejudice against Muslims? As for prejudice against Muslims, that is clearly one of the definitions of Islamophobia, and I agree that it should be mentioned. However, it is also evident from the sources used in the article that other more broad definitions exist, and what I argue is that these definitions should also be mentioned one way or another. -- Karl Meier23:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
SlimV, I dont which editors you were refering to, but none of what you said applies to me. The defination of Islamophobia has to come from Reliable Sources. If there are multiple RS's putting forth different definations, they can all be mentioned together, but for you to put your own defination - thats incorrect obviously. The task is simply to go by RS. What do the RS say about the defination? That is what you should be talking about. Your own opinion here of what Islamophobia means and what it doesnt mean, doesnt matter one bit. --Matt57(talk•contribs)23:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Writing
The term isn't used to refer to alleged prejudice; it is used to refer to prejudice. You can say of any given incident that it is not prejudice (that is, that the term is being used wrongly) just as you can say of any given table that it's not really a table. But just because you can question the correctness of the term's use doesn't mean that the word "table" refers to alleged tables. SlimVirgin(talk)00:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Please see my explanation below. What you say is basically right. But some people maintain that "alleged prejudice" does exist, and this is one side of the controversy around the term. There is not uncommon to give some crude classification, to stress that some distinction must be drawn. For example, one may see a phrase "real or fictional people", because the default meaning which pops in your mind for the word "people" is "real people", and the usage of the word "or" is a precaution against a possible preconceived notions. `'юзырь:mikka00:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The term is overused far too often to refer to Criticism of islam as being prejudice aganinst muslims. That is why it is alleged. There is doubt into wheter many allegations of Islamophobia are really prejudice against muslims. While this is somewhat true for Anitemitism, it is usuaully clear who hates Jews, and who is just critical of certian aspects of Jewish culture and religion. Antisemitism also isn't used to the same extent to dismiss criticism as Islamophobia is. There really isn't much comparision.--Sefringle09:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
First sentence
Sorry I jumped into editing without noticing that a heated discussion is in progress here.
I replaced
Islamophobia (literally "fear of Islam") is prejudice against Muslims though the term can be used for a variety of purposes, and is sometimes used to criticize people opposed to Islam.
with
Islamophobia (literally "fear of Islam") is a controversial term referring to real or alleged prejudice against Islam and Muslims.
for the following reasons:
it says basically the same, but in a terse way.
For reading of the article it is important for the reader to know from the very beginning that there is a controversy surrounding this term.
The root of this controversy is that some people use this term in reference to real examples of prejudice, while other use this term as an accusation addresed to critics of Islam
There was also an objection of the usage of the word "term". Normally it is advised to call a spade a spade: "Birch is a tree of genus... etc.", rather than "birch is a term that refers to a tree of..." In our case we are not simply describing prejudice against Muslims. The bulk of the article is the discussion of the usage of this term, so my form of the intro is justified.
I think we need to define a term first, make it very clear what it means, then address its controversies. Otherwise our readers get totally confused. Crum37500:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
There are some things that cannot be defined in an easy way. It is not a whim of the editor that this article has a whole section called "definitions". (BTW your objection is equally applicable to the previous version.) `'юзырь:mikka00:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
You start out by using the most common definition, typically the one used by the creators of the term. Then you can criticize it from all directions, but to make the article readable, you need to start somewhere. If you start qualifying and criticizing every word, all you get is a confusing mess. Crum37501:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Mikka, thanks for helping out in this POV mess. I agree with your version which caters to everyone's views. I cant understand why SlimVirgin being an administrator too could not come up with an amicable solution and instead opted to join in the edit-war, but you have provided a solution that satisfies all, in my opinion, or at least should be the starting point of a more clearer defination but it should always be a version which satisfies everyone's views. I dont see how people have to suggest their own definations of what this means and doesnt mean. There are 4 refs for the defination and the first step should be to list them what they say and then, make up our own version which fulfils or mostly fulfils the various versions. --Matt57(talk•contribs)03:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
"Islamophobia (literally "fear of Islam") is a controversial term referring to real or alleged prejudice against Islam and Muslims". I support this sentence as a good compromise, which is neutral and include everything that needs to be included. -- Karl Meier06:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The real or alleged thing: it is just bad English. The term means prejudice against Muslims. It may be unfair, it may be crazy, it may be used wrongly etc etc etc. But none of that changes the meaning of the word. Antisemitism is not alleged Jew hatred; it is Jew hatred (though people will argue about who is and who isn't an antisemite). Racism is not alleged prejudice on the grounds of race. It is prejudice on the grounds of race (though people will make claim and counter-claim as with antisemitism). You can't force words to mean what you want them to mean, though you can say "make sure you use the word correctly."
As Mikka already mentioned "In our case we are not simply describing prejudice against Muslims. The bulk of the article is the discussion of the usage of this term". There is no reason why the opening sentence should not reflect that. -- Karl Meier08:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The whole article is discussing who says the term is used inappropriately. Its opponents do not deny its meaning. No one says it means "alleged prejudice." Again, I have to ask: do you see the difference? SlimVirgin(talk)08:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I think I understand, but the current version of the intro section says that it "is a term referring to" which is accurate, because that is how it is being used. We dont just say "Islamophobia is". Anyway, I will look at this again in a few hours. -- Karl Meier09:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, tell me one thing. Regarding your edit here, you have changed the defination of the term to just say "prejudice against Muslims". Is this your own meaning or have you verified this from the 5 refs? Is "prejudice against Muslims" agreed on by all the 5 refs, or is just the term that satisfies ref #5, the one you put in that says what you want it to mean? You're starting the edit war here again by saying something which you think is right and destroying the efforts of Mikka here who had made an effort to start a defination that satisfied everyone. By you trying to make the term be defined as only what ref 5 says, this is misrepresentation of the refs. --Matt57(talk•contribs)13:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, this present version is correct: Islamophobia refers to real or alleged prejudice or discrimination against Islam or Muslims., becuase some RS have said that its a myth and denied its existence (hence 'alleged') while others like Itaqallah pointed out below have confirmed it (hence 'real'). --Matt57(talk•contribs)19:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
"real or alleged" is simply bad writing (and SlimVirgin has explained the fallacy of such language above i believe). can you point to a reliable academic source claiming that there is no such thing as discrimination against Muslims? i hope you're not citing Kenan Malik, because it should be pretty clear that he isn't a reliable source. ITAQALLAH20:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Please don't waste our time with straw man arguments and chewbacca defenses. The subject of our discussion is not about whether there are examples of Muslims being discriminated against, and I am sure that everybody here will agree that almost every single identifiable group in the world experience some discrimination. What matters to the first sentence is that (to use Mikka's words) "in our case we are not simply describing prejudice against Muslims. The bulk of the article is the discussion of the usage of this term". The opening sentence doens't say "Islamophobia is..." it says "Islamophobia refer to...". -- Karl Meier20:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
i don't see a strawman - please read what Matt wrote. your argument appears to be along different lines, making the distinction between "is.." and "refers to..". Islamophobia, when the word is used, refers to anti-Muslim prejudice/discrimination. whether not it is real, or whether not it is applicable to a scenario, is dependant upon the application of the word itself, and not its definiton. if you say an incident was an example of Islamophobia, you are saying - unequivocally - that it was characterised by anti-Muslim prejudice (not that it might have been). the reliable sources provided use similarly unequivocal language, and weasel words only obfuscate that. i'll propose changing it to "Islamophobia means..." which i think should be agreeable. ITAQALLAH23:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Itaqallah, Salman Rushdie says Islamophobia is "a wretched concept". Kenan (yes he's RS for this article, see his article) says the term is a myth. The first statement of this article should thus include the word "controversial" if not "real or alleged". --Matt57(talk•contribs)13:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
please prove how a neurobiologist is a reliable source on matters to do with sociology. Rushdie isn't an authority either. ITAQALLAH17:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Itaqallah ,do you even know who Sandra Fredman is? Thats the first ref. How is she authorized to give the definition of this term? Apply the same stringent standards to these 5 people. I found another good reference from Robert Spencer here and will use this in the article. There's LOTS of good stuff that Spencer wrote about this mythical term and I will look over all that. Another source for Spencer for later referal and another. Kenan is a RS: British writer, lecturer and broadcaster, trained in neurobiology and the history of science. As a scientific author, his focus is on the philosophy of biology, and contemporary theories of multiculturalism, pluralism and race. . Please stop shining light on only one of his qualifications (neuroscience) in an attempt to discredit all his other qualifications. thanks. --Matt57(talk•contribs)17:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
i don't know why you're citing Malik's unsourced wiki-article as a reference for his credentials. what qualifications does he have which make him an authority. that is, after all, what's supposed to distinguish him from someone like Mr. Hasan. what's Spencer got to do with this? he's not an authoritative source either. as for Fredman, she is writing in an authoritative, scholarly, peer-reviewed and universally accepted publication (cf. Oxford uni press). ITAQALLAH17:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The OED that I have access to online says Islamophobia is "Hatred or fear of Islam, esp. as a political force; hostility or prejudice towards Muslims." We seem not to mention the first meaning given. Should we? Tom HarrisonTalk17:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok - here is my version of the first sentence now, which justifies the use of the word "controversial" in the first sentence (no, SlimVirgin, it wont move to the 3rd sentence, it will stay in the first. In addition, please leave this issue alone, just like you asked me to leave it alone too). These are all RS for the term, they are qualified people in relation to the discussion of this term, unlike J. Hasan, the non-notable Graduate Assistant who SlimVirgin had tried to pass off as a source (not to mention, she even contacted the guy for his picture, which was the last thing I was expecting from an administrator):
Islamophobia is a controversial term <ref>R</ref> that refers to prejudice or discrimination against Islam or Muslims.<ref>The 5 previous refs</ref>
The ref R will link to this:
"All this indicates that "Islamophobia" is virtually useless as an analytical tool. To adopt it is to accept the most virulent form of theological equivalence, and to affirm, against all the evidence, that every religious tradition is equally capable of inspiring violence." - The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) By Robert Spencer, ISBN0895260131, Regnery Publishing, Pg. 199
Historian Victor Davis Hanson: "There really isn't a phenomena like "Islamophobia" - at least no more than there was a "Germanophobia" in hating Hitler or "Russiaphobia" in detesting Stalin." - The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) By Robert Spencer, ISBN0895260131, Regnery Publishing, Pg. 200
"This term is a fabricated and question-begging linguistic manoeuvre designed to present the protection of religious sensibilities as a civil liberty issue." - The "Islamophobia" scam, Oliver Kamm
"The pseudo-psychiatric term Islamophobia is a statement that any criticism of Muslims is evidence of clinical pathology. Yet the label is often attached to valid criticisms of particular Muslims whose behaviour has laid them open to legitimate censure." - David Green, Bad Faith VI
So there, you have a couple of additional sources that deny the existence of this term or criticise it. The already existing huge amount of criticism in the article justifies the use of "controversial". These additional sources I gave may also be used as additional material for the Criticism sections. Any objections? --Matt57(talk•contribs)01:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
There really is a distinction between what 'Islamophobia' means, and whether it exists. Your examples only refer to the second point, and fail to "deny the existence" of the term. --Coroebus16:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
You said nothing that refutes my suggestion to use the word "controversial". Controversial doesnt mean that the meaning of the word is being denied. The fact is that this is a controversial term. Do you deny that? --Matt57(talk•contribs)13:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Literal meaning of Islamophobia
The literal definition of the word Islamophobia is: "Irrational fear of Islam". A Phobia is "An irrational or obsessive fear or anxiety, usually of or about something particular.", so Irrational fear of Islam, makes sense. And since this is the literal meaning of the word, it must be mentioned in the first sentence in brackets as we have now. Anyone who opposes this? (specifically SlimVirgin, Itaqallah and AddHoc)? --Matt57(talk•contribs)13:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
see WP:OR. please substantiate your assertion with academic resources. the four used for the first sentence do not support this i believe. ITAQALLAH13:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I quoted Phobia from Wikitionary to support the meaning that its an "irrational fear". Thats the literal meaning of Phobia. --Matt57(talk•contribs)13:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Discrimination and Human Rights: The Case of Racism: "...prejudice against Muslim communities (Islamophobia) which manifests itself in violence, harrassment, discrimination, general negative attitudes and stereotypes."
Muslims in the West: From Sojourners to Citizens: "Muslims have been portrayed in all kinds of media in very derogatory and vilifying ways. Among the effects of such depiction, which has contributed to what is now widely referred to as "Islamophobia," Muslims in Britain have been subject to considerable discrimination and even violence."
Muslims and Crime: A Comparative Study: cites Runnymede Trust definition, "dread or hatred of Islam and therefore, to the fear and dislike of all Muslims."
A Dictionary of Jewish-Christian Relations "In Christian circles anti-Judaism has not been banished entirely from Church and theology, and Islamophobia is a widespread phenomenon."
IMHO the article table of contents must clearly contain two major sections:
actual discrimination against Muslims
alleged misuse of the term in reference to criticsm of Islam.
For example, it is unclear what current section title "Criticism" means. It may be either criticiam both of fist and second use, or even the second (ab)use itself. I wopuld have done it myself but unfortunately I cannot devise good enough section titles. Please comment. Mukadderat16:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I would also have to notice that excessive focusing on the term "Islamophobia" created a heavy bias expressed, e.g., in the section title "Alleged acts of Islamophobia". Many of these acts are real acts of hatred or discrimination towards Muslims, and putting them under the heading "alleged" is prominent disrespect towards victims of these acts. I would suggest to more widely use more specific words instead of this neologism as much as possible in the article, including section titles such as "discrimination", "prejudice", etc. Mukadderat16:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Why is the EUMC report so important that it should have it's own section? I suggest that the content there is merged into one of the other sections, where the material would be appropriate. -- Karl Meier17:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The organization is a notable and reliable one. You would certainly have a point if there were many reports, then giving EUMC a section would amount undue wieght. But that's not the case.Bless sins22:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Writing
Matt, when you change one sentence, please look around to see what else you have to change too. Otherwise, the same fixes have to keep on being made, which is very dispiriting. If controversial is in the first sentence, it can't be in the next one. If you want to start with "Islamophobia is a term that refers to ...," it's best not to start the next sentence with "Use of the term dates back to the 1980s." But if you're starting with "Islamophobia means prejudice against Muslims," then you must start the next sentence with "Use of the term ..." because if you say "it," you're saying the prejudice dates back to the 80s.
Its you who is bringing in POV issues. The term is clearly controversial and this must be mentioned in the right way. I will fix this out later. --Matt57(talk•contribs)17:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Why must it be mentioned in the first sentence, rather than the third? And do you take my point about watching the writing when you make these changes? SlimVirgin(talk)17:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Why should be mentioned in the 3rd and not the first? Tell me that first.
Because we must first simply introduce the term and say what it means. We don't poison the well immediately by adding a POV term to the first sentence, especially when your sources for its controversy are all non-specialists. And it is the USE of the term the opponents object to, the way the concept is applied. SlimVirgin(talk)18:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
No. How are the proponents of the term specialists and how are the opposers not? And its "poisoning" the well. Please refrain from using POV language like this. The real poisoning is the attempt to pass this mythical controversial "wretched concept" (as Rushdie said) as a valid term.--Matt57(talk•contribs)18:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
SV is quite right here. we have yet to see a real academic criticising the concept (whilst the overwhelming majority of academia has accepted its usage), the only significant opposition apparently stems from "right-wing commentators" (see below), a neurobiologist being the most prominent of them. ITAQALLAH19:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
How about: "I am Senior Visting Fellow at the Department of Political, International and Policy Studies at the University of Surrrey." (http://www.kenanmalik.com/top/cv.html). On that link, see the papers at conferences he has presented at various conferences. A documentary he gave on "Are muslims hated" was shortlisted for an award. He's more than qualified in this case. --Matt57(talk•contribs)19:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
No its not. I'll attend to this later. Why dont you leave it alone? In future, please refrain from using aggressive language like "leave it alone". This is not your article or your encyclopedia. thanks. --Matt57(talk•contribs)18:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
A question
To the editors on this page who oppose the use of this term — do you believe there is such a thing as prejudice against Muslims (regardless of what we call it)? SlimVirgin(talk)17:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the defination of prejudice:
In its original usage, the word prejudice referred to a prejudgmental statement of ill doing, or an evaluation or decision made before the facts of a case could be properly determined and weighed.
So for me, no, I dont 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. But yes, there might be some people who know nothing about Islam except the fact that the 9/11 hijackers were Muslims. To judge Islam on that fact alone, is prejudice. Does it exist? In my opinion, yes. Where are you going with this? --Matt57(talk•contribs)18:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I didn't ask whether you were prejudiced. I'll repeat the question:
according to the Encyclopedia of Race and Ethnic studies (p. 218, Routledge 2003), "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." ITAQALLAH18:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so if people are accepting that anti-Muslim prejudice does exist, and this is simply the name for it, can you see that what people are objecting to is the application of the term, not the term itself? The term for anti-Jewish prejudice is antisemitism. No one disputes that. Some people dispute particular uses of it, arguing for example, that opposition to Israel isn't opposition to Jews per se. But people don't go around calling antisemitism "controversial" for that reason. They don't define it as "alleged prejudice against Jews."
It is not the term Islamophobia that is controversial, it is the application of it, which is too wide in the opinion of some commentators. That's what our current first paragraph says, and the writing flows well enough, so I hope it can be left that way. SlimVirgin(talk)18:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
If I made a term "AppleKiller" to specify that anyone who believes in the Quran is wrong and should be imprisoned, is this a controversial term or is the application of the term controversial? --Matt57(talk•contribs)19:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, the way the term has been defined is wrong (according to me) and is thus controversial, for example:
Discrimination and Human Rights: The Case of Racism: "...prejudice against Muslim communities (Islamophobia) which manifests itself in violence, harrassment, discrimination, general negative attitudes and stereotypes." - DISAGREE
Muslims in the West: From Sojourners to Citizens: "Muslims have been portrayed in all kinds of media in very derogatory and vilifying ways. Among the effects of such depiction, which has contributed to what is now widely referred to as "Islamophobia," Muslims in Britain have been subject to considerable discrimination and even violence." - DISAGREE (in addition, invalid generalization)
Muslims and Crime: A Comparative Study: cites Runnymede Trust definition, "dread or hatred of Islam and therefore, to the fear and dislike of all Muslims." (DISAGREE, I dont like Islam, yet I like some Muslims)
So there. No one disgrees that "prejudice towards Islam or Muslims" exists. With the dictionary meaning, ofcourse it exists in some people, who have no knowledge of Islam, yet make the judgement that its bad - which is contrary to my case where I and many other people like Robert Spencer know about Islam and then we dislike it. We know that Muhammad massacred 800 people in Banu Qurayza. Some people dont. --Matt57(talk•contribs)19:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
In addition, the most commonly accepted defination is Runnymede's: "dread or hatred of Islam and therefore, to the fear and dislike of all Muslims" - which is clearly only applicable to some people. Like I said, I dislike Islam but I have some very good muslim friends. Further, hatred or dislike of Islam does not imply dislike or hatred or violence towards Muslims. The term is thus controversial, mythical and its a wretched concept because it seeks to turn down the criticsm of Islam labelling it as Islamophobia and this I obviously strongly disagree with. Thats why you have people like Rushdie and Kenan Malik saying that its a myth and a wretched concept. These are the changes which I will bring back after the article loses protection. --Matt57(talk•contribs)19:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The relevance is that people here want to define Islamophobia as "alleged prejudice," when it simply refers to prejudice. The "alleged" part kicks in regarding the application of the term, not the meaning of it. As I said above, antisemitism isn't alleged prejudice against Jews. SlimVirgin(talk)07:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree, this is a grammar issue. Just because Islamophobia is defined as "prejudice against Muslims" does not imply that such prejudice actually exists (in purely technical terms). - Merzbow08:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
SlimVirgin is exactly right. If I disagree that a particular act was anti-semitic (I may think it was simply criticism of Israel say) that does not mean that I therefore redefine anti-semitism to mean only 'alleged prejudice against Jews', it continues to mean what it means whether it is correctly or incorrectly used. If you think that particular events labelled 'islamophobia' are justified (say because you believe it is justified to criticise Islam over its treatment of women) then you disagree that the event was islamaphobia - you should not disagree with what islamophobia means --Coroebus08:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, Ok, I agree. We can define a word "Kraplooza" to mean a man with 5 heads, but that doesnt mean that man exists. We can define Islamophobia but that doesnt mean it exists. I'm however supporting the use of the word "controversial" in the first sentence, the explanation for which I've given above. --Matt57(talk•contribs)13:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Matt, you ought to read some Russell. It gets me back to my first question: do you believe there is such a thing as prejudice against Muslims? You said you did. Therefore, your analogy to "Kraplooza" doesn't work, because there's no such thing as a man with five heads, but you say there is such a thing as prejudice against Muslims, and reliable sources call that thing "Islamophobia." That is its name. SlimVirgin(talk)16:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, do you know what OR is? Original research? It doesnt matter what we little wikipedian users think about Islamophobia. Kenan Malik has called it a myth. Salman Rushdie called it a wretched concept. So why are you asking us what it means? We are no one to judge on whether it exists or not. The term is controversial, as I have said and it must be stated so in the first sentence. You didnt get my Kraplooza argument. --Matt57(talk•contribs)18:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The parallel between antisemitism and Islamophobia is sickening. Antisemitism is the real phenonmenon that has been around for thousands of years, that has claimed millions of Jewish lives, and that has made unbearable many more millions of Jewish lives. By contrast, "Islamophobia" is a neologism, mostly used to bash criticism of Islam. If this term has any adverse consequences, then these are mostly non-Muslims, including former Muslims, who suffer them. BeitOr16:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
SlimVirgin is exactly wrong in twisting other people's contribution. "People" do not want to define "islamophobia as alleged predjudice". People want to stress that the alleged islamophobia is just as important topic is the real one, so that the article can be read bearing these two understandings in mind. While for whatever formal reasons you don't want to complicate the firtst sentence of the definition, I would like to insist that the second sentence must clearly utter this point. This is the whole root of the controversy around the term, and the introduction must make this crystal clear, properly summarizing the article content. I don't see anywhere in the book that the introduction must give only a definition. On the contrary, the manual of styleThe emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. And I see the fight to remove the text "real or alleged" from the intro as POV pushing to diminish one equally improtant aspect. For comparison, in the article agoraphobia there is no importance to cover "allegations of agoraphobia". But "allegations of islamophobia" is almost half of the story in the world. There are very vocal people who deny the existence of irrational hatred towards Muslims, who say that "it is their own fault that their religion is backwards, stone-age, inferior to 'civilized world', ....bla bla". This bigotry is important part of the story. Mukadderat15:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't follow your point, Mukadderat. The allegations about the term's misuse are fully covered by the article and the lead. What we're dicussing here is whether it is ever used correctly, and what the definition of the word is. The definition is not "alleged prejudice," just as the definition of a flat thing with four legs and drawers that we can rest a computer on is not "alleged desk." SlimVirgin(talk)16:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Yep, another example would be the article on creationism, which obviously doesn't prespose that creationism is correct, however begins with a straightfoward definition "Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their entirety by a supernatural deity or deities". Articles that relate to views that are contraversial should nevertheless begin with a reasonable definition. Addhoc21:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
This failing to understand another point of view is really baffling. It is not that this construction some gammatical quirk or rare invention. You may google for phrases like "real or alleged" "real or fictional", and you will find thousands of definitions. Even in wikipedia there are quite a few examples: "National psychology refers to the (real or alleged) distinctive psychological make-up of particular nation". "This is a list of notable bands named after real or fictional places." "The term Samaritan refers to people, real or fictional." and there are vastly more examples with of definitions that mention dichotomies: (A levee, levée (from the feminine past participle of the French verb lever, "to raise"), floodbank or stopbank is a natural or artificial slope), "Zeolites are natural or synthetic aluminum silicates". THOUSANDS o definition of this kind! Will you rush and delete them everywhere in wikipedia? It was already explained above, the idea of adding this dichotomy into a definition is to remind about the second aspect, often ignored. Since there we don't really have any discussion about "alleged desks", no one needs a this option. So this example with desk is actually a logical fallacy of false analogy, most possibly aimed at ridiculing the stupid opponent ("alleged desks, he-he, what a moron!"). Of course, it would be ridiculous to discuss "allegations of desks, but "allegations of islamophobia" is a prominent debate. Mukadderat22:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Um, I don't grasp how the definition of levees that explains they can be constructed on natural or engineered slopes has any relevance. If you're being amusing, then our sense of humours are somewhat different. Addhoc22:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Um, to grasp anything, you must start from learning how to read and how not to twist oither people words. The definition says not what you pretend to ridicule. It says '"A levee is a natural or artifical slope."' I dont see a flurry of editors saying that "this is nonsense: a levee is a slope. Period. It does not matter whether the slope is real or artificial. A slope is a slope is a slope". Mukadderat22:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Your argument shows a poor grasp of English or of logic, I don't know which. A group of people, including the British government and the United Nations, have gotten together and between them, via usage, have revived and spread further a newish name for something. That name is Islamophobia. They are defining it as "prejudice against Muslims." Maybe they were wrong to do that, but they did it anyway. IT IS A NAME, NOT A DESCRIPTION. You are not "alleged Mukadderat" and I am not "alleged SlimVirgin." I may be allegedly stupid, and you may be allegedly brilliant, but our names are simply facts about us: words that we have attached to ourselves. Similarly, "Islamophobia" is a word that is attached to — signifies, denotes — "prejudice against Muslims." You may want to read "On Denoting." SlimVirgin(talk)22:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Your argumenty shows poor grasp of logic aggravated by good command of english. Your attempt to find a contradiction is ungrounded. There is no contradiction between the two definitions. By the way, I don't quite understand what you want to say by the words "IT IS A NAME NOT A DESRIPTION". What is "it"? Mukadderat22:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
"It" is "Islamophobia." It is a name, the name of a particular type of prejudice. And I didn't say anything about a contradiction. SlimVirgin(talk)22:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The example you gave — "allegations of islamophobia" — is about whether the word is being used correctly. The question is: Is the allegation that X is prejudiced against Muslims correct? The question is not: Is the allegation that X is allegedly prejudiced against Muslims correct? X is not allegedly allegedly being prejudiced. SlimVirgin(talk)22:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Wrong. "allegations of islamophobia" is not about the word is used correctly. If I say "my neighbor is a moron", do I use the word "moron" incorrectly? Of course not. The word is used correctly. Similarly, in the phrase "criticism of islam is a manifestation of islamophobia" the word "islamophobia" is used very correctly. With all due respect to your knowledge of English, it is time for you to read the article propaganda and see how very correct usage (in fact very ingenuous usage) of English or Deutch or Russki may produce very false information. Mukadderat22:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Mukadderat you are not coming through at all here. What exactly, in terms of the article, are you supporting or opposing? Are you advocating that Islamophobia be defined as "'real or alleged' prejudice" or just as "prejudice"? The former definition is just illogical gibberish. - Merzbow22:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Apologies for disturbance
It suddenly dawned upon me which logical error is in the definition and how it can be easily explained. "discrimitation against muslims" is Islamophobia", but "alleged discrimination" is "alleged Islamophobia"! My brain was stuck on the assumption is that the whole discussion is about denying that some cases are only allegations of dicrimination. If only all editor's misunderstandings could be resolved in such a simple way... Apologies again. Mukadderat23:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Attempt number 4: is prejudice against Muslims real phenomenon or fictional?
Once again, the article seems to focus on the alleged misuse of the term, at least judging from the table of contents. More than half of section tiles contain weasel words "alleged", "labelled". The article must clearly separate allegations and opinions from real facts.
I suggest to have a section that desribes real prejdice against Muslim, not "alleged" acts of Islamophobia. I didn't't hear any voice in support of my suggestion. Does that mean that there is no prejudice against Muslims? `'юзырь:mikka23:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Just like antisemitism islamophobia is a very real phenomenon. There are however plenty of people wanting to whitewash their own views. // Liftarn
I hate to be a pessymist, but it seems that no one really wants to discuss anything big, just waiting for article unprotection to jump into the revert war over the introduction. Mukadderat15:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
What are your thoughts on which (if any) form of dispute resolution would be worth trying? Addhoc18:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Comments
Malik’s views have been misrepresented by taking them out of the context of his article (see http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16735). If you read the entire article, it’s clear that his criticisms are made in a specific context: The United Kingdom after 9/11. For example, he says ““Britain is a different place now—even for Muslims. There are still racist attacks. Early in December, three young Muslims were beaten up in Manchester by a 15-strong gang in what the police described as a "dreadful racial attack." Yet we have moved a long way from the 1970s and 1980s, and I get little sense of the intensity of racism that existed then. “Its clear that he doesn’t think it’s a myth in the sense that it doesn’t exist, just that the concerns about it in post-9/11 Britain are overblown.
I think the article gives undue weight the criticisms of Islamophobia see WP:UNDUE. Most of the material in the article seems to be about criticism of the idea rather than the idea itself. It’s pretty clear that the critics hold a minority view. You have the Runnymede Trust, EUMC, and ABC News (see http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=1700599) on one hand and some people I’ve barely heard of on the other. The weight of the article should be on the actual concept, not the criticism.
“Public views of Islam are one casualty of the post-Sept. 11, 2001 conflict: Nearly six in 10 Americans think the religion is prone to violent extremism, nearly half regard it unfavorably, and a remarkable one in four admits to prejudicial feelings against Muslims and Arabs alike.
“27 percent of Americans admit at least some feelings of prejudice against Muslims;”
“More than four in 10 say they've recently heard prejudiced comments against Arabs, and about a third say they've heard biased remarks against Muslims. About one in six say they have friends or relatives who are outright prejudiced against these groups.””
I want to reiterate the issues I have with the material related to Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. It seems to have been removed, but since removed material seems to have a way of reappearing, I want to make my objections clear.
“Malik cites Yasmin Alibhai Brown, who writes: "It is not Islamophobia that makes parents take 14 year old bright girls out of school to marry illiterate men ..." Malik argues that Islamophobia is not a form of racism because Islam is a belief system. "I can be hateful about other beliefs, such as conservatism or communism. So why can't I be hateful about religion too?"”
I find this passage problematic because while the actual quote is sourced, the material in the quote is not. Including it in this context implies that the religion of Islam is somehow responsible for unidentified illiterate men marrying unidentified 14 year old girls with the permission of their unidentified parents. Who are these men? Who are these girls? How is Islam responsible? The quote simply drags Yasmin Alibhai Brown’s unsupported opinion into the article. It’s unclear to me if her quote is from “credible published materials with a reliable publication process.”
The passage has been taken out of context. The actual passage is “Some also point the finger at cultural practices within some Muslim communities.”By and large," the journalist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown acknowledges, "the lowest achieving communities in this country are Muslim. When you talk to people about why this is happening, the one reason they give you, the only reason they give you, is Islamophobia." It is not an argument that Alibhai-Brown accepts. "It is not Islamophobia that makes parents take 14-year-old bright girls out of school to marry illiterate men."
Alibhai-Brown disagrees with me about the extent of Islamophobia, believing that it is a major force shaping Muslim lives. But, she adds, it has also become "a convenient label, a figleaf… and all too often Islamophobia is used to blackmail society."” (see http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16735). This makes it clear that she thinks that Islamophia is a problem for Muslims, a fact not reflected in the material included.
I think the Rowan Atkinson material should be removed. I don’t see how anyone can accept Rowan Atkinson as an authoritative source on Islamophobia or legal issues in the United Kingdom.
I propose trimming the lists: Efforts against alleged Islamophobia, Alleged acts of Islamophobia, and Views labeled Islamophobic and moving the material to main article. Only a few representative examples should be given. As it is now, I think the number of entries overwhelms the reader and gives the impression that the article is trying to prove the existence of Islamophobia. It’s a kind of “kitchen sink” approach that weighs down the article.
The header does not accurately summarize article. It gives even more weight to the critics than the main article, which is also unbalance (see WP:UNDUE).
I think the material on the manifestations of Islamophobia should be added back into the definitions section. As I’ve stated previously:
I’m not sure why the passage “Islamophobia manifests itself in a number of ways, ranging from discrimination and verbal threats to physical attacks on the persons and property of Muslims or people perceived as Muslims. [20]” was removed. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary gives several definitions of the word”definition.” The most appropriate in this context are “a statement expressing the essential nature of something; a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol;” and “the action or the power of describing, explaining, or making definite and clear.” By none of these definitions should the passage be excluded from the section on definitions.
Eliminate as many of the references from the main article text as possible. They give the impression that the article is trying to prove a point. The discussion can stand on its own (both the definitions and the criticisms). The references should be mainly in the reference section.
There seems to be a systematic bias in the article (see WP:BIAS and WP:CSB). It seems to deal mainly with the English Speaking World and does not take into account and views from the Muslim World, China, India, etc.
The picture of Rushdie should go. It’s the only picture included in the article and it represents a minority opinion. It also doesn’t add anything new to the article. Who cares what he looks like?
The views expressed in the in the article are mainly from the western world and mainly from the United Kingdom and the United States. Views from other parts of the world should be added to the article (see WP:BIAS). For instance, Al-Hayat, Al-Ahram, the Daily Star, the Gulf Times, and the OIC website are possible sources of information. Umer Al-Amerikee03:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Rowan Atkinson was not specifically speaking on Islamophobia. He was speaking about a law that would ban anti-religious speech. Since Islamophobia is not 'criticism of religion', this material does not belong here. Xiao t15:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree, but don't try to remove Malik at the same time, or you'll be reverted. There is no justification for removing Malik. - Merzbow17:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I am not removing Malik. His views have been repeated twice: once in the introductory paragraphs, once in the criticism section. Xiao t17:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The entirety of that paragraph is repeated again two sections down. It is also worth noting that criticisms and reviews usually come at the end of an article, not at the beginning (see Iraq War and others). The repetition of a single man's view whose credibility in the subject is questionable, along with the peculiarly high position of the criticism section (just after the 'definition' of the term) suggests the article is making a point. Xiao t18:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're talking about, that paragraph is not repeated at all. The information in the lead is a short compression of that information, which is what a lead is supposed to do. - Merzbow20:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
What is there to not understand? The third paragraph of the lead deals with denying the existence of islamophobia. Why does the lead not include mention of the UN addressing islamophobia, or facts on the phenomena covered by news? Antisemitism's lead does not include mention that some feel the charge of antisemitism is used to stifle criticism of Israel. And then after a quick offer of a definition for the word, the article goes onto the criticism section further elaborating that islamophobia does not exist. The rest of the article is essentially boring lists that most will not read anyway. The article is trying to push the argument that prejudice against Muslims is a myth. Xiao t22:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
It's good to see you've progressed from attempting to remove the Malik material from the article while leaving the summary in the lead in contravention to WP:LEAD. Moving on, the Criticism section constitutes less than 1/3rd of the article text as far as I can tell, so your attempt to imply that the article is built around criticism holds no water. Oh, and BTW... have we met before? Couldn't be, could it? Naaaaaah... - Merzbow22:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Rejoinder to Criticism
This is the body of Bunglawala's response to Malik's article:
Kenan Malik (“Islamophobia Myth,” Issue 107) surreptitiously isolates manifestations of Islamophobia to violent and overt hostility towards Muslims on our streets by racists and the police.
However, Malik’s conception of Islamophobia is at odds with virtually every source cited in his article. Ever since the term Islamophobia entered mainstream discourse following the Runnymede Trust’s report on Islamophobia in 1997, it is understood to entail a fear of and prejudice against Muslims. Such prejudice may manifest itself in ways other than physical attacks by racists or disproportionate arrests by the police, and the semantic edifice erected by Malik makes a mockery of victims of prejudice by pretending they have not been discriminated against.
In January 2005, the Crown Prosecution Service released figures which showed that of the 44 cases of religiously-aggravated crime between April 2003 and March 2004, in exactly 50% of the cases the religion or perceived religion of the victim was Islam. This is only the second year that the CPS has been collating these figures, but with the Muslim population making up only 3% of the British total, the statistics are already quite telling.
Malik also fails to recognise how and why the likes of the British National Party – for fear of being prosecuted under our incitement to race hate laws - have switched their strategy from targeting racial groupings to explicitly targeting British Muslims as a faith group. Malik’s Prospect piece and his C4 documentary ‘Are Muslims Hated?’ strangely omitted any mention of the northern riots of 2001 and the key role the BNP’s Muslim-baiting played in them. Gallingly, he then criticises the government’s proposals to close the loophole in our legislation and prohibit incitement to religious hatred. Does Mr Malik – who describes himself as an anti-racist - think that the BNP should be allowed to continue their incitement because it is merely anti-Muslim?
Malik has further not read the explanatory notes of the draft law to outlaw incitement of religious hatred, which states that “what must be stirred up is hatred of a group of persons defined by their religious beliefs and not hatred of the religion itself … criticism or expressions of antipathy or dislike of particular religions or their adherents will not be caught by the offence.” Malik may therefore continue to be hateful of religion as long as he does not incite hatred of followers of religion, which is hardly a meritorious act worth protection.
Islamophobia is not confined to the far right. It is the progressive realisation that racism may manifest itself in ways other than physical attacks that racial discrimination in the field of employment and in the delivery of services was outlawed in the Race Relations Act 1976. Similarly, Islamophobia may be manifested by denying an individual employment based on their belief in Islam, and such conduct was only recently outlawed in the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003. There is no such “myth” in this regard, as demonstrated for example by the survey conducted by BBC Radio 5 Live in July 2004. The BBC sent fictitious applications for jobs using applicants with the same qualifications and work experience, but different names. The investigation found that a quarter of the applications by the candidates with traditionally English sounding names were successful in securing an interview, compared with 13% for the applicants with Black African names and only 9% of applicants with Muslim names.
Some writers in the mainstream media have been no less culpable in fomenting this prejudice against Muslims and contributing to their emergence as the ‘folk devils’ of popular and media imagination. In July 2004, the Sunday Telegraph published a series of four breathtakingly anti-Muslim pieces by Will Cummins in which he compared Muslims with dogs and argued why ‘Muslims are a threat to our way of life’ (Sunday Telegraph, 25 July 2004). It is simply unthinkable that an editor of a national newspaper would still be in his job if he had allowed a similar barrage of hate to be directed at Afro-Caribbean’s or Jews.
It can appear, as Kenan Malik contends that 'Islamophobia is a myth', but only if you deliberately choose to look the other way.
His largest point was that Malik only counted "overt and violent hostility" and ignored other forms of prejudice. That point is entirely missing here. There is no mention of that argument. Such a shallow representation of his views have been introduced here that it seems his response to Kenan Malik was frivilous and devoid of real rationale. It was written in poor english and barely touched the content of Bunglawala's statement. Malik's views were not so carelessly reproduced here. Every major arguement of his was represented here. Xiao t20:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
As I see it? Malik's view (according to his article) is that there was no rise in the number of violent acts (spitting and shoving Muslims don't count, although stabbing to death would), and therefore islamophobia doesn't really exist. Everything else Malik writes rides on the notion that claims of islamophobia were invented to use as some tool. Bunglawala's primary argument is that prejudice cannot just be measured by the number of overt acts of violence. He cites that BBC study that found people with Muslim names would be less likely to secure job interviews, and newspaper articles that compared Muslims to dogs. Anyway, it's not for me to judge the effectiveness of Bunglawala's rationale. He issued a response on behalf of Britain's largest Muslim organization, and that response should be adequately covered here in terms of what it actually says. That's all I did. I changed the pre-existing paragraph because it poorly covered Bunglawala's response, it ignored the very point he most emphasized, and was generally written in poor english. Xiao t21:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
My point was that there is a disparity between the arguments of Malik (as we portray them) and the rejoinder (as we portray it):
British writer and academic Kenan Malik has criticized the concept of Islamaphobia, calling it a "myth." Malik argues Islamophobia obfuscates discrimination against Muslims with criticism of Islam and that it is used to silence critics and Muslim reformers. He states that the extent to which Muslims are more vulnerable to social exclusion and attacks than other groups is exaggerated. Malik writes that the concept allows politicians who may have supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq or the War on Terror to "reclaim the moral high ground" and "pitch for the Muslim vote." He argues the result is the creation of a culture of victimhood, allowing individual Muslims to attribute low achievement to Islamophobia, and not to themselves. Malik argues that Islamophobia is not a form of racism because Islam is a belief system. "I can be hateful about other beliefs, such as conservatism or communism. So why can't I be hateful about religion too?"
The above is not addressed by this:
Malik's analysis of Islamophobia was criticized by Inayat Bunglawala from the Muslim Council of Britain and Abdul Wahid from the Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir.[77] Bunglawala writes that Malik's argument is limited to overt acts of violence against Muslims. As an example of less overt prejudice, Bunglawala cites a BBC study that found applicants for jobs who had English-sounding names were more likely to secure an interview than those with Muslim names. By ignoring non-violent examples of alleged Islamophobia, Malik's commentary "makes a mockery of victims of prejudice by pretending they have not been discriminated against," according to Bunglawala. In addition, he argues that Malik did not adequately study the proposed law against the incitement of religious hatred, and that he failed to appreciate the definitions of the term "Islamophobia" according to the very sources he uses in his article.
The first para doesn't say that Malik limits himself to violence, so why are we arguing against that in the second para? The first para doesn't mention the proposed law, so why does the second para mention it? We're writing a narrative here, not just a disjointed series of opinions. SlimVirgin(talk)21:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The second paragraph is making the observation that Malik doesn't account for non-violent forms of prejudice in evaluating whether islamophobia as a phenomena exists. That observation rebuts Malik's "myth" and "exaggeration" argument. Bunglawala contests how Malik percieves what "islamophobia" means even according to his own sources, in that most sources describes islamophobia as a form of prejudice, and yet Malik suggests the only indicators for it are violent acts and police actions. Bunglawala elaborates that there are also non-violent forms of prejudice which need to be considered. That's where the BBC study becomes a relevant example. That applicants with Muslim names are many times less likely to secure a job interview in Britain than one with a Christian name suggests a terrible bias that isolates and separates Muslims from the mainstream. This addresses "islamophobia is a myth". This addresses "Muslims are more vulnerable to social exclusion and attacks than other groups is exaggerated". Xiao t23:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Oliver Kamm
His main expertise is banking, and only writes opinion editorials for The Times, quoting from his blog doesn't mean it has greater credibility than anyone else Bleh99906:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Clearly wrong, or the lead from Oliver Kamm wouldn't consist of this - "Oliver Kamm (born 1963) is a British newspaper columnist, author and blogger. He writes opinion pieces for The Times. His book Anti-Totalitarianism: The Left-wing Case for a Neoconservative Foreign Policy published by the Social Affairs Unit in 2005 advocates interventionism in foreign policy.[1]" - Merzbow07:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, he wrote one book which has no relation to this subject, far from 'his area of expertise' as you falsely claimed. Why don't you quote from his book instead of an opinion in a blog? Bleh99907:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
You want to add a better quote, do so. But what's there is allowed by policy, so don't remove it. He's notable for being a political commentator, not a banker. - Merzbow08:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
ABC News post-9/11 poll
This is now referenced and discussed in two separate sections in the main text. The shorter discussion in the "alleged acts" section should now be removed. - Merzbow01:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't really care which section it's in, Merzbow, so feel free to do as you see fit. I'm going to take this off my watchlist for a while, because I don't think it has any chance of becoming well-written. SlimVirgin(talk)01:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Lead, "Proponents" and other issues
The opening paragraph already states the position of critics of the term. I see no reason why Kenan Malik's view should be elaborated again in the third paragraph. Given responses to him and the views of those who believe islamophobia isn't a myth aren't also touched, it is wrong to give him two appearances in the article. The article has many sections dealing with many issues. Also, Kofi Annan is not a declared "proponent" of islamophobia. Nor is the EU or other bodies which discusses the problem. Saying that Islamophobia is only defined as so-and-so by its proponents is false. Xiao t01:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, please read WP:LEAD, which explicitly states that the lead cannot discuss anything that's not also in the article. - Merzbow01:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Please read WP:LEAD's first few paragraphs. In particular, note the word "overview". The sentence stating the views of the opponents of the term gives a sufficiently strong overview of what critics think. A three paragraph lead should not feature what critics think in the first and the third. Both Kenan Malik's and Salman Rushdie's view are overly analyzed in the lead, making it less of an overview and more of a thorough investigation into their beliefs. This is not what the Lead is for. The lead needs to also generally cover the rest of the content of the article, which it doesn't. The article has 6 noteworthy sections, only the definitions and criticisms are blessed with representation in the lead. 02:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Myth
The problem with the passage “British writer and academic Kenan Malik has called the concept a "myth,"” is that it does not provide enough context. What the article states that Islamophobia is a “myth” in a very narrow context, that of the United Kingdom in 2005, where a new law outlawing religious hatred was being proposed. In fact, Malik never says that Islamophobia is a ‘myth” only that it is not as big a problem as many in the UK thought it was at that time. Here is a sample “In reality, discrimination against Muslims is not as great as is often claimed.” If he thinks it’s a “myth” why doesn’t he say that discrimination against Muslims doesn’t exist? Here’s another sample, “I used to organise patrols on east London estates to protect Asian families from racist attacks.” If he thinks there was no Islamophobia, why was he organizing patrols against it? Here’s still another quote “There are still racist attacks.” That doesn’t make it sound as if he thinks it’s a “myth” either.
Umer Al-Amerikee02:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Kenan Malik did say Islamophobia is a myth. I think his article was badly written. It is one thing to say that prejudice against Muslims is overstated or exaggerated, it's something else to say it doesn't exist. He mixes the two up. This is what Bunglawala (from the MCB) points out. Xiao t02:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I’d like to point out that the some material in question was removed previously from the definitions section because and editor thought it was not a definition, so I decided to add it in its own section . In any event, the ABC News material was added as I indicated in the talk section on June 8th. No one has responded. In any event, I'm not sure why adding a section requires consensus when nothing else seems to.Umer Al-Amerikee02:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Atkinson, weasel-wording, and undue weight
editors who keep reinserting Atkinson's comments refuse to explain how specifically he is talking about Islamophobia - he mentions the word not once and none of his comments are in that context. furthermore, he's a comedian. secondly, the criticism section comes after the bulk of the discussion. there is a concerted attempt to get as much criticism mentioned as prominently as possible - the lead mentions the exact same critique three times, and editors keep pushing up the section re: criticism - which itself is pretty bloated. if we can't reach an agreement, it looks like it's on to mediation. oh, and for a term that is "widely recognized and used" according to the Encyclopedia of Race and Ethnic studies (p. 218, Routledge 2003) - using such weasely qualifications in the first sentence are really quite inappropriate. ITAQALLAH13:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The "word" doesnt have to mentioned. Islamophobia supporters silence the criticism of Islam (religion). Atkinson is talking about this same issue. Its relevant. Please insert it back. It doesnt matter if he's a comedian, not everything he says in his life will be about comedy. This has been explained pretty well by someone else, please go back and read the stuff. --Matt57(talk•contribs)14:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
"Islamophobia supporters silence the criticism of Islam" -- that's a POV, not objective fact. we have no indication that Atkinson is talking about Islamophobia specifically. ITAQALLAH14:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
It's entirely appropriate that the concept is first introduced, then criticized, then applied in accordance with the way its proponents define it. I don't understand the basis of Itaqallah's objections. BeitOr14:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
please refer to what i wrote above. its "proponents" are the majority, as the term is "widely recognized and used". criticism, according to the ERE, derives from right-wing commentators. the concept and how/where it has been applied are mentioned first, then criticism of both these aspects comes afterwards. ITAQALLAH14:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The ideas that the proponents are the majority and the criticism derives from "right-wing commentators" are not supported by the available range of sources. The majority of whom? And is Salman Rushdie, an impeccable leftie, a "right-wing commentator"? BeitOr20:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Describing everyone who comprehends the meaning of the word "islamophobia" as its proponent is POV and OR. Is Kofi Annan a proponent of islamophobia since he used the word? Atkinson was not speaking on islamophobia. To draw a connection to his comments on a law banning religious incitement, and islamophobia specifically is OR too. Add his comments to Criticism of Religion instead. And the lead is giving undue weight to the view of critics. An overview of the critics' view is featured in the very first paragraph, and the entirety of the third elaborates the view of two of them.This in a three paragraph lead? Even the definition gives deference to the critics. "Proponents". How does everyone else define it? There are 6 sections of content in the article, why does criticism take up so much of the lead? Xiao t14:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The critics define "Islamophobia" as a stick that is used to bash criticism of Islam. I hope this answers your question. BeitOr20:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Proponents of Islamophobia
The following passage makes no sense "Islamophobia is a controversial term that refers to what its proponents see as prejudice or discrimination against Islam or Muslims." It makes it sound as if there is a group of people out there that are in favor of being afraid of Islam who want to use the term "Islamophobia" to mean "prejudice or discrimination against Islam or Muslims" when in fact the individuals and groups who support using this definition are opponents of Islamophobia.Umer Al-Amerikee16:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
While it might be poor grammar of the phrase, but the test speaks not about "proponents of Islamophobia" as you think, but about "proponents of the term". `'юзырь:mikka02:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Historical Perspective
The article needs some historical perspective beyond what has already been included. As indicated in the first section after the lead section "Hostility towards Islam and Muslims has been a feature of European societies since the eighth century of the Common Era. It has taken different forms, however, at different times and has fulfilled a variety of functions. For example, the hostility in Spain in the fifteenth century was not the same as the hostility that had been expressed and mobilised [ sic] in the Crusades. Nor was the hostility during the time of the Ottoman Empire or that which was prevalent throughout the age of empires and colonialism. It may be more apt to speak of 'Islamophobias' rather than of a single phenomenon. Each version of Islamophobia has its own features as well as similarities with, and borrowings from, other versions." A section on the history of Islamophobia should be added similar to the one in the article on Antisemitism.Umer Al-Amerikee16:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
What you are suggesting is doing Original research based on anachronism. It is a dangerous idea to apply neologisms to old times. The article is about a specific modern political buzzword. For example when Mongols razed a town which failed to promptly give up, we do not call this "ethnic cleansing, do we? `'юзырь:mikka02:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
The majority of people use(and search for) islamophobia as per its meaning. This article is about "the controversial term" and not the phenomena that defines it. Therefore it is appropriate for a the "for..." tag to be on top pointing those interested in a general article on persecution against Muslims to find it. Is there any reason to object? Xiao t20:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, because "for" tags do not belong at the top of articles except in the case of simple disambiguation. - Merzbow20:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
This could be a case of disambiguation depending on what the article is suppose to be about. For some editors it seems to be about predjudice against and persecution of Muslims. For others, it seems to be mainly about the word "Islamophobia" and the use of the label to stiffle criticism. It seems as if it could/should be about either one or both but if it is about that later disambiguation is necessary but if it is about the former (or both) why is there even an article called Persecution of Muslims?Umer Al-Amerikee17:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe so. I did notice in WP:D that there are exceptions to this rule and that common sense should always be used. In any event, you didn't really address my main point. There seems to be some overlap between the articles as well as confusion over what each one is about. How will the average reader know they have the article they are looking for?Umer Al-Amerikee02:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
In an article that draws a lot of attention, like this one, you will need to provide a good reliable source that discusses the term and its use. This helps to keep the viewpoint neutral. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't quite understand your objection. There is a wikipedia article with this title. It is not deleted. It is not even nominated for deletion. It has numerous references, because the topic is of big notice. Finally certainly it is directly relevant to the section I am suggesting. Mukadderat16:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
While I can't speak for Carl, I think that he meant that if there is a reliable source for this particular sentence, a <ref> tag should be appended to it indicating that. It looks like there are multiple options for sources in the Flying while Muslim article. Cheers. --MZMcBride19:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
^ Sandra Fredman , Discrimination and Human Rights, Oxford University Press, ISBN0199246033, p.121.
^ Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad, Muslims in the West: From Sojourners to Citizens, Oxford University Press, ISBN0195148061, p.19
^Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All, Runnymede Trust, 1997, p. 1, cited in Quraishi, Muzammil. Muslims and Crime: A Comparative Study, Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 2005, p. 60. ISBN075464233X. Early in 1997, the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia, at that time part of the Runnymede Trust, issued a consultative document on Islamophobia under the chairmanship of Professor Gordon Conway, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sussex. The final report, Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All, was launched in November 1997 by the Home Secretary, Jack Straw. The word "Islamophobia" is formed with the Greek suffix -phobia 'fear of -' in a similar way to xenophobia or homophobia.
^Edward Kessler, Neil Wenborn, A Dictionary of Jewish-Christian Relations, Cambridge University Press, ISBN0521826926 p.429
^Runnymede 1997, p. 1, cited in Quraishi 2005, p. 60.
^Rima Berns McGowan writes in Muslims in the Diaspora (University of Toronto Press, 1991, p. 268) that the term "Islamophobia" was first used in an unnamed American periodical in 1991.
^Runnymede 1997, p. 5, cited in Quraishi 2005, p. 60.
^Muzammil Quraishi, senior lecturer in Criminology at the University of Salford, writes that "whether we refer to behaviour as 'anti-Muslimism' or 'Islamophobia' seems a moot point. If we are agreed that either term refers to behaviour encapsulating hatred, and/or dislike to the extent of social and economic exclusion of Muslims, we must move to discover the extent of such behaviour and to evaluate how this influences crime and victimization ..." (Quraishi, Muzammil. Muslims and Crime: A Comparative Study, Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 2005, p. 60).
^ Sandra Fredman, Discrimination and Human Rights, Oxford University Press, ISBN0199246033, p.121.
^ Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad, Muslims in the West: From Sojourners to Citizens, Oxford University Press, ISBN0195148061, p.19
^Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All, Runnymede Trust, 1997, p. 1, cited in Quraishi, Muzammil. Muslims and Crime: A Comparative Study, Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 2005, p. 60. ISBN075464233X.
