Talk:Islamophobic incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Religion / Interfaith (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Interfaith work group.
 
WikiProject Islam (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

the material in this article[edit]

the material in this article is originally from the islamophobia and persecution of muslims articles, [1][2].-- mustihussain  06:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

This is probably the blandest entry I've ever read on Wikipedia --NWo4lifePT (talk) 07:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


France example / sources[edit]

How about to mention "Broken Sword" one of most successful PC adventure games titles, in connection with France? I think it's the only adventure game title, with dozens of Islamophobic remarks, which made a big commercial success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.72.244.250 (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


Article is Crap![edit]

This article is total crap because it makes all legitimate criticism of islam seem like a general coordinated hatred of Muslims, worldwide conspiracy against Muslims, which is complete crap in my opinion that smears critics of Islam as all being racists as part of the ficticious term called Islamophobia for example, to silence legitimate criticism of Islam and islamist terrorist incidents worldwide, ehich suggests a worldwide campaign against Muslims, which is complete crap.

This article is part of a campagin against critics of Islam, using a biased point of view against critics of the Islamic religion as racists based on the ficticious lie of Islamophobia, you see, to slander critics of terrorism as false, and all the anti-free speech Islamophobia stuff is complete and total crap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.11.158.220 (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

If this article stays it needs to be balanced with a list of attacks in the name of Allah. Other wise this article would be analogous to giving a list of incidences of the French resistance with no other details mentioned.
--OxAO (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

POV fork?[edit]

I disagree with where the above anon is coming from, but I don't think the argument is without substance. If we have similar collections of anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, or other incidents against a religion, please correct me. Otherwise, I'm not sure what we gain from this list that can't be adequately covered at Persecution of Muslims. I'm certainly not going to propose deletion or anything at this point, but I don't think I buy the implicit assertion that persecution of Islam is somehow unique compared to persecution of other religions. I can't tell from the first comment on this talk page whether this was the result of a formal split from Islamophobia and Persecution of Muslims; either way, we may want to consider reversing that with a merge. Thoughts? --BDD (talk) 06:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I quick check showed for instance Antisemitism in the United States#Antisemitic incidents so there it seems to be ordered by geography, but that's a matter of taste. // Liftarn (talk)

RfC[edit]

An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Page move[edit]

Most of the incidents mentioned here doesn't use the the Islamophobia either those incidents should be removed or page name should be changed to "Attacks against Muslim" section of the new article may discuss Islamophibia.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I already removed some of them. Some of the examples show islamophobic incidents, but some are just incidents, some are just islamophobic, and some are none of them. Furthermore, it is quite uneven to get genocidal acts at the same level as one attacked hijab wearing lady. And even then, it is quite rude to the victims of the Srebrenica massacre (the biggest European genocide since the Holocaust) to call it an "incident." In short, a lot of work needs to be done here.Jeff5102 (talk) 09:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
According to Wiktionary Incidents can be minor events, or events that start crisis or workplace injuries. Define:Incident in google and you get: An event or occurrence: "several amusing incidents. 2. A violent event, such as a fracas or assault: "one person was stabbed in the incident".
Thus it would seem incident runs the gamut and thus nothing should be deleted just because some considers it NOT an incident. I've put up with a couple non-important deletions on those grounds but perhaps will review.
If you want a separate article for atrocities or genocides, then create one and move the worse cases there. Probably something someone should have done anyway.
Otherwise it looks like an excuse to get rid of all entries because not important enough or too important, and thus entirely remove the article. CarolMooreDC 21:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
We already got a page called Persecution of Muslims for atrocities and genocides. So why should I create ‘another’ one? That seems pointless to me.
As far as I understand the meanings wikidictionary or google give for 'incident' the French "incidents" do not fall into this description. Legislation or a survey are no minor events, they didn’t start a crisis (yet) and they were no “workplace injuries.” So that doesn't work.
And the “description event or occurrence “is too vague to be used here. In that case, all kinds of ”events” or “occurences” (like Muhammad Ali losing a boxing match) would be an incident. In that case we can insert everything concerning islam into this article, since everything that happens can be desribed as "an occurrence".And that could make this a tiresome, long, and bad article. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 09:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Moreover like I said before most of the source don't describe the incidents as "islamophobic"--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
It looks to me like the more questionable things were removed, so at this point you might have to point out what is not described as Islamophobic and not expect us to do your work for you.
Some of the ongoing "incidents" directly vs. Muslims probably do belong under Persecution of Muslims. Move them there if editors there don't object.
Dictionaries DO have a wide definition of incident - see Merriam's and dictionary.com and freedictionary.com.
Incidents obviously is a catch all category for now that includes media/political/airplane incidents that are not necessarily persecution. (Though the Geller stuff easily could be moved to that article as well as kept here.) I hope it's not just that people want to get rid of anything that is NOT a physical attack. That's like getting rid of almost every article labeled an Antisemitic canard. Perhaps there DOES need to be one called something like Islamophobic slur/canard/etc.
If you want to do a page move on this, please list it Wikipedia:Moving a page. I've also put a notice on the Islam wikiproject for other's opinions. CarolMooreDC 18:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting a page move; I was busy improving the page. But now we talk about it: please see this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Persecution by Muslims. As you can see there, replacing the page for a category can be a good idea as well. And in this case, for reasons I mentioned above, I think it is.Jeff5102 (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The reason the article was nominated was: I'm pessimistic as to whether this will work, given this latest fad on Wikipedia of Muslim-baiting among some editors... The article is a straight up POV WP:COATRACK which basically synthesizes everything bad done by a person or people who happened to be Muslim to others. It's obvious agenda pushing. Is an article listing incidents OF persecution the same thing? Would you also remove Antisemitic incidents during the Gaza War?? After all there already is a Persecution of Jews article.
And what about the incidents that don't have their own article, both here and in Antisemitic incidents during the Gaza War??
Now there may be unnecessary duplication with some ongoing major persecutions listed here that belong in Persecution of Muslims and some more minor incidents that belong here, and that could be fixed. CarolMooreDC 16:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
There are quite a few objections to that article that Jeff cites (disclosure: and I created). My aim was to guide the reader to other articles on Wikipedia because persecution was by victim group and the reader might want to study the issue by perpetrator. In the end it was replaced by a category that grouped together articles that talked about persecution by Muslims. One of the most important objections to the article was that it was a WP:synthesis of research. There wasn’t a main source book for the topic. It was felt that going beyond a disambiguation page or category made the article ripe for WP:forking and creating parallel narratives with hidden agendas. Indeed, it did attract editors who added questionable content that I had to remove. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
This article suffers from the same problems. It is a synthesis and it duplicates material from other articles. We already have Persecution of Muslims. It isn't clear we need another list article. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Which article did you create? Persecution of Jews, Antisemitic incidents during the Gaza War or Persecution of Muslims?? CarolMooreDC 19:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Media-related incidents[edit]

The whole section of Media-related incidents should be deleted. An incident is "an individual occurrence or event" by definition. Most of the items in Media-related incidents aren't incidents but general characterizations of the works of individuals, their general attitude, or their anti-Islamic expression in print or speech on an on-going basis. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that when reorganized; only the last two really relevant. I'm sure more could be found. A few probably could be moved to Islamophobia. Why not just remove all but last two and put an "expand section" tag on it. I'm sure we can find a few more. CarolMooreDC 05:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Just to repeat the above: According to Wiktionary Incidents can be minor events, or events that start crisis or workplace injuries. Define:Incident in google and you get: An event or occurrence: "several amusing incidents. 2. A violent event, such as a fracas or assault: "one person was stabbed in the incident". Thus it would seem incident runs the gamut and thus nothing should be deleted just because some considers it NOT an incident.
However those removed were not incidents but analysis or descriptions of behaviors and they've now been integrated into the Islamophobia article. CarolMooreDC 21:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Any objection to removing French hijab ban in schools from article?[edit]

France is a secular and equal modern republic. The hijab ban reflects that secularism must be respected inn state facilities as much as a Frenchman would respect a mosque in his country by removing his shoes when visiting. The law 'persecutes' France's Catholic majority as well. In fact, it's free and equal discrimination to everybody. The fact that some French Muslims find this Western law offensive is basically a spit in the face of the ethnic cleansings and murders in this article. I'll hear for objections to deleting this section and if nothing comes, then au revoir. Indiasummer95 (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead and delete it. I agree it doesn't belong. Dougweller (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Split by country?[edit]

There are a lot of Islamophobic incidents widely reported in the press but missing from this article. Perhaps, we should split this article by country (e.g. List of Islamophobic incidents in the UK)?VR talk 03:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

unsalvageable as a single article[edit]

"Islamophobia" is a propaganda term, popularized in the 2000s in a very specific sense, i.e. the anti-immigration and especially anti Muslim immigration stance in western countries after 2001. "Islamophobia" is the alleged irrational fear of Islam, as opposed to informed and rational criticism of Islamism, Islamic terrorism, and segregated Islamic subcultures in western cities. I doubt you'll find many people who will admit that "yes, my fear of Islam is completely irrational". The EDL, which certainly "has been called Islamophobic" with some justification, has a spokesman who unambiguously states that "there are good Muslims" and "we are only opposed to those Muslims who refuse to integrate", which is hardly "irrational". If not even the much-reviled EDL can be called "Islamophobic" in the strict sense of the term, you will really have to go very far out to the lunatic fringe to find any unambiguous Islamophobes. 99.9% of the time, the term is just used as propaganda to dismiss all criticism, rational or irrational, i.e. it is itself used irrationally. People have the right to be as indoctrinated or irrational as they like, but Wikipedia's voice does not.

It is not permissible to suddenly use the term for all sorts of historical atrocities where Muslims happened to be on the victim side. The Bosnian genocide was a terrible crime, and it was part of an ethnic conflict where there was Muslim-on-Christian as well as Christian-on-Christian hostility, but it is completely subjective to subsume it under "Islamophobia" in retrospect, and people doing so are in fact destroying any useful definition the term may once have had.

I don't care if the Bosnian genocide "has been called" Islamophobic. People write all sorts of stupid nonsense. If a notable author has voiced this, that's just their own political opinion and can be used in quotes for whatever it is worth, but it is certainly not an excuse to follow suit in Wikipedia's voice. WP:NPOV.

I am perfectly willing that a handful of incidents listed here can in good faith be considered "Islamophobic", e.g. the murder of Marwa El-Sherbini, a woman was killed for no apparent reason other than her killer happened to hate Muslims. This goes under hate crime and "Islamophobic incident" is rather an euphemism. It was an instance of murder motivated by ethno-religious hatred. There is no point in keeping an article listing such isolated crimes unless there is some way to connect them with coherent prose. Otherwise just place them in a category "hate crime". --dab (𒁳) 11:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, this article is looking at nothing short of an advert for the Respect Party, with just a ragtag spore of any time somebody opened their mouth without calling Islam a religion of peace. I deleted the Kosovo section which attempted to turn a Slav-Albanian ethnic conflict into a religious war without any evidence of for example, Serb speeches denouncing Muslim Albanians or that Muslim Albanians were singled out from the Christian or atheist ones. The Bosnia one is loaded - previously deleted was an attack in Nigeria which was a retaliation from a Boko Haram one (conveniently ignored!) Indiasummer95 (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Kosovo section is loaded, manipulated POV[edit]

I had before removed this section for being an abuse of POV, but it has been restored with the wonderfully gramatically correct quote "Muslim were victims of mass killings". The section mentions the Ljubenic massacres, which were attacks on Albanian Kosovars, although no mention of religion at all is in that article.

This is because the Kosovo dispute was, and continues to be, on ethnic lines. Ethnic Albanians are possibly the most unorthodox Muslims, although a substantial amount of them are Latin or Greek Catholic, and due to Hoxha's regime of the only ever truly atheist state, many are still atheist. Calling it a religious conflict is flawed on both sides - people like Pamela Gellar or other right-wingers see Kosovo as the creation by the UN of an Islamic state in the Balkans, despite it being secular and laique - and Slavic Muslims (Gorani) have been amongst the refugees from Albanian violence.

I know that Wikipedia isn't built on morals, but manipulating a civilian massacre for a political agenda is sickening. Indiasummer95 (talk) 12:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Burma AND Myanmar?[edit]

They're both the same country. Which should be deleted, Burma (very brief section) or Myanmar? (longer but more POV) Indiasummer95 (talk) 12:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Move or delete[edit]

This page should be move or deleted, by calling an incident "Islamophobic", by definition you are saying the perpetrator(s) are irrationally scared of Islam. Unless the criminals are caught, you rarely find out what their motivations are. Or is this page just to track the usage of the term of "Islamophobic" in the media? If yes, then it should be deleted according to Wikipedia poliy - WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE.--Loomspicker (talk) 14:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I haven't understood your campaign against the word. It seems to be based on your personal definition. Our article says "Islamophobia is used generally to refer to prejudice against, hatred towards, irrational fear of, or racism towards Muslims." Please notice the word or. Dougweller (talk) 17:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
It does seem to be nothing more than a continuation of Persecution of Muslims. There is no natural division except in the mind of the editors. And, of course, we have a category that does the job, Category:Persecution of Muslims, that avoids the charges of WP:SYN. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Synthesis removal[edit]

I was honestly starting to think the text search function in my browser was broken when using the term "phob".--Loomspicker (talk) 13:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

When I can easily delete over 30% of an article of this size for being WP:SYNTHESIS, you know there is something seriously wrong. There is likely even more to delete from sources I cannot directly check (books / deadlinks / subscriber only etc), unreliable/pov sources. A consensus on how much coverage an 'incident' needs before it is included would also end up with a shorter page.

What's worse, is some of the content is contributed by users who have been editing for this site for some time.[3][4].--Loomspicker (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Persecution of Muslims[edit]

Requested by 2 editors but disputed, one of the editors asked me to add this which allows editors of both articles to discuss it and tags both. Dougweller (talk) 05:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Merge to Persecution of Muslims[edit]

Result of the merger proposal is No Consensus. While there are good faith voices advocating for merging to Persecution of Muslims, and the concerns about the current article status are well founded, opposition to the merger is also based on valid policy concerns, and the status of the article cannot be changed without a clear consensus to do so.

Personal note by closer: there does seem to be some WP:Potential, that the article quality could be greatly improved by expanding from a simple list of incidents to actually covering scholarship and surveys on the prevalence of Islamophobic incidents in recent years, and the trendline of incidents in various countries. Once that narrative begins to flesh out, I think it will be easier to judge whether the article has a long-term prospect at being relevant, or whether it really only makes sense within the context of historical Muslim persecution.

WP:NAC by request at WP:ANRFC by VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 13:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Much of this article is not about specific incidents but societal views towards, for example, Rohingya, Uyghyrs or people of the Caucasus. Surely such attitude or government legislation such as prohibiting Uyghyr minors from mosques is 'persecution'? At what date does 'historical persecution' become 'phobic incident'?

Other than the above, the page lists vandalism or assault of different importance, which would probably not merit a framework article like this. Discuss Indiasummer95 (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Support, the templates at the top of the page have been there since June and no editors are attempting to rectify the issues.--Loomspicker (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The two subjects are not the same, unless you are arguing that, for instance, the German government persecuted Marwa el-Sherbini personally. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 16:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Do a few Islamophobic murders and vandalism need a framework article? The notable ones like el-Sherbini have their own pages, and that's enough. But if you got rid of the state persecution here, would what's left really merit a framework article? Indiasummer95 (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Even if some of the individual incidents are not notable, the sources in the article clearly indicate that such incidents are notable in aggregate. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 16:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
        • No it doesnt. Wikipedia editors are perfectly capable of stringing together stuff in a manner that would created the impression of conclusions and analysis that are not being made in the original sources, but that is expressly not allowed. There might potentially be a valid article subject under something like "modern persecution of muslims" but that article would have nothing in common with the current list. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
          • If you have changes, please propose them. Your failing to note the number of reliable sources that talk about the number of Islamophobic incidents is not the same as the sources not being present. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 17:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
            • my suggestion is that the hopelss nature of the existing content be recognized as completely inappropriate not only for an article as it stands but as a basis for any future article of a similar but encyclopedic scope and so it be deleted or at least redirected. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
              • Luckily, there is a very long-established process for dealing with articles that you think ought to be deleted or redirected. (It has a three-letter abbreviation, not a two-letter one). –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 18:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
                • If edit-warring is one person overriding a decision as their own little Crusade, only User:Roscelese is doing that. Nobody else is crying over this hodgepodge going off Wikipedia. Indiasummer95 (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • support this is just an indiscriminate list of random information WP:IINFO and news tibits WP:NOTNEWS that (may or may not) have been described as "islamophobic". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Amen, Red Pen. Not enyclopedic, and synthesised, possibly for an agenda. Indiasummer95 (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't have any opinion right now other than if this is being proposed the proper merge template should be on both articles, and this discussion would then be at the other article. If no one else knows how to do it I can with Twinkle easily. Dougweller (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
OK, I was asked to "do my magic with Twinkle" by The Red Pen of Doom. I hadn't noticed there was a merge tag already, but that wasn't done properly as it hadn't tagged the 'merge to' article. I'm not taking sides in this debate, just give it another week (there's no deadline) and if no other editors take part then at the moment it appears to be 3 !votes to one, which is enough. I miscounted the number of !Support votes when I made my edit summary, sorry. But you really always should notify the 'merge to' article because editors there may want to have a say. I've moved the discussion here because this section is the target in the tag at the other article. Dougweller (talk) 05:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Merged again, Roscelese has not been able to demonstrate why this page isn't just a list of "random information WP:IINFO and news tibits WP:NOTNEWS that (may or may not) have been described as "islamophobic""; where anything useful can go in Persecution of Muslims. WP:POVFORK also comes to mind.--Loomspicker (talk) 10:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

We have a procedure for merging articles. It involves templating the target article so that any editors there who have that article but not this article on their watchlist get a chance to comment. They may not agree and I have seen cases where that has happened and the two articles have not been merged. And I'm sorry, but a merger is a process "by which the contents of two or more pages are united within a single page." No one has moved content from this page into the target page which is another concern. Shouldn't a good faith merger actually be accompanied by transfer of relevant content (usually all content that doesn't duplicate content already in the target article - if that means some content is not transferred there needs to be a justification for that. Now maybe this merger is a good idea but I'm not commenting on its merits or taking part in the debate, I am simply trying to make sure that proper procedure was followed. The only person who has contacted me about this is The Red Pen of Doom who asked me to do it. This means a delay of a week, no big deal. And if there is agreement to merger then I will expect more than a redirect. Otherwise this would look like a way of circumventing AfD. Dougweller (talk) 11:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppse merge. They are two different terms. One deals with incidents related to a relatively new term and is desgined to cover more recent incidents which of the type which are regularly discussed in newspapers. The other is designed to cover these things in a more overviewed way. Pass a Method talk 19:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose Merge - The two topics are not the same. One deals with historical persecution and the other exhibits a far more detailed selection of issues surrounding prejudice and racism in specific countries ranging from the far right to political discourse. Since Islamophobia is a relatively newly discovered classification of persecution that academics and scholars are still currently exploring, this article gives a more detailed analysis, than historical persecution which lacks the social and political context for the development of the persecution of Muslims. Furthermore if the two articles are merged the amount of information would need to become split anyway since it's so vast. The mere fact that so many things have been documented by the news and academia on such cases is tantamount to it's notability. StuffandTruth (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I note that the original person (user:Indiasummer95) who redirected this page instead of actually merging it, has been indefinitely blocked, and the other nominee is undergoing an ANI case ([5])... I have to question whether the proposal is therefore legimate or driven by a personal and/or aggressive agenda. StuffandTruth (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support Merge there's no Christianophobia so why would there be Islamophobia96.52.180.114 (talk) 07:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Which is not a reason for merging. WP:Othercrapexists says " We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this." That's in a discussion about AfDs but applies equally here. I'll also note that this IP was blocked as a sockpuppet in September, but unblocked on the basis that it was believed to be a dynamic IP. As the sock's edits were on religious articles, and this is another religious article, it seems to be the same editor. Certainly showed up here out of the blue (first reverting me on the same fallacious grounds another relatively new editor used). Dougweller (talk) 08:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Hm. Too bad nobody bothered to involve me in this. Seriously, is a list, that gives ethnic cleansing of 75,000 Muslims in Sri Lanka equal value as ONE attack on ONE hijab-wearing Muslim woman in Canada a balanced list? Anyway, please inform me next time, boys and girls. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Islamophobic incidents. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Islamophobic incidents. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Islamophobic incidents. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Islamophobic incidents. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Islamophobic incidents. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)