Talk:Islamophobia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Religion Portal 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.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
	This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is not a forum for general discussion of Islamophobia. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Islamophobia article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination: Speedy Keep, 13 August 2006, see discussion. Older deletion discussions: Keep, 1 April 2006, see discussion. Keep, 17 Jun 2005, see discussion.

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

	Islam Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Islam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines.
B	Quality: B-Class
Mid	Importance: Mid
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

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

Contents 1 148 Muslim Graves 2 Opinions of various people 3 Header 4 A notable Iranian reaction to be added 5 Mediation 6 German Wikipedia version of this article 7 Biased lead 8 Qouting Piers Benn 9 Muzammil Quraishi not notable enough to be quoted 10 "The fact remains that the term 'Islamophobia' has one purpose — to suppress any criticism, legitimate or not, of Islam" 11 'controversial' again 11.1 References 12 Perceptions section 13 Proposed merge with Persecution of Muslims 14 Etymological fallacy 15 Mediation failed 16 Protected 17 Inappropiate Image 17.1 Selective image manipulation 17.2 Image caption 18 References need to be cleaned up for formatting so other editors can use them 19 Title 20 Controversial->criticized 21 FACTUAL CORRECTIONS 22 Image 23 Tone down Kenon's voice....not a balanced intro 24 Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People 25 Admin edit needed, minor 26 FA disambig 27 Category request 28 mediation 29 widespread acceptance 30 Bless sins POV pushing edits 31 see also 32 When the edit freeze lifts 33 "Academic sources verify overwhelming acceptance" 33.1 section break 33.2 Sources, again 34 Islamophobia, a neologism 35 Edit protected 36 Verification failed 37 Chronological order 38 Opinions 39 Dating (late 1980s) wrong? 40 Lead (again) 41 ABC's What Would You Do? 42 Recent deletion by Annoynmous 43 1st OIC Observatory Report on Islamophobia – May 2007-March 2008 44 Dennis Prager 44.1 Notability of Prager 45 Flying Imams 46 It doesn't belong 47 Public discourse section 48 Discussion of racism 49 Distinction 50 "Labelings" 51 Stockholm 52 Islamophobia, too broad a term for the definition - Muslimophobia fits better 53 FrontPage

[edit] 148 Muslim Graves

Please note that these were WWI veterans who had served in the French army. Please add that to the section. They were not ordinary French Muslims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.57.14.158 (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opinions of various people

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Header

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] A notable Iranian reaction to be added

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Mediation

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

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

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

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

[edit] German Wikipedia version of this article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Biased lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

03:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

[edit] Qouting Piers Benn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Muzammil Quraishi not notable enough to be quoted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“

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

”

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

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

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

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

[edit] 'controversial' again

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

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

We certainly have reliable sources saying that the charge of antisemitism is hindering criticism os Israel: Some have argued that the charge of antisemitism is being misused as a way to silence criticism of Israel.^{[1][2] [3] [4][5] [6][7]} After Jimmy Carter published his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid he was labelled an antisemite.^[8][9]

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

"This noxious campaign is intended to silence such perfectly legitimate criticism, by tarring it with the brush of anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism, truly loathsome charges. They reveal the lengths that these people apparently feel impelled to go to in order to silence a true debate on campus." ^[10]

[edit] References

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

[edit] Perceptions section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Proposed merge with Persecution of Muslims

[edit] Etymological fallacy

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

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

Let's define the word "Important".

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

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

[edit] Mediation failed

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

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

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

[edit] Protected

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

[edit] Inappropiate Image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Selective image manipulation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Image caption

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Title

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Controversial->criticized

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] FACTUAL CORRECTIONS

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

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

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

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

[edit] Image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Tone down Kenon's voice....not a balanced intro

Hi all,

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

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

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

Please consider balancing the introduction by toning down this aspect.

Thank you.

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

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

[edit] Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People

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

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

[edit] Admin edit needed, minor

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

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

[edit] FA disambig

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

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

[edit] Category request

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] mediation

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

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

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

[edit] widespread acceptance

as provided in the mediation discussion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Bless sins POV pushing edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] see also

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

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

[edit] When the edit freeze lifts

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

[edit] "Academic sources verify overwhelming acceptance"

I'll reproduce what you pasted above:

as provided in the mediation discussion:

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

also official recognition by the EU,[17] the UN,[18] mainstream media,[19], many governments (primarily the UK) - see above, as well as scholarly academic sources (see Islamophobia#References for a sample of reliable sources which discuss Islamophobia as a matter of sociological study). i think all of this is sufficient for us to keep the lead neutral and tidy: "Islamophobia is a term that refers to prejudice or discrimination against Islam or Muslims." ITAQALLAH 22:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The first bullet says it is "widely used" (immaterial: it is also used in critics' discourse), the second does not discuss the term itself. The third indicates that the term is widely used, though controversial. You have nothing saying the term itself is not controversial, and have provided one showing that it is. Do not delete sourced content like you did in your recent edit. Arrow740 (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

All the sources added were unreliable. Rushdie, Spencer, Malik etc. are all unreliable sources. Itaqallah was correct in removing them.Bless sins (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What are your guidelines for reliability on this article? Arrow740 (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The same as my guidelines for reliability in every other article: WP:SOURCES.Bless sins (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"Widely used" means quite literally the term is widely used, not that it is widely discussed - the latter is what the critics are doing. Both quotes from that source clearly indicate widespread recognition and usage - as do all three sources. The official acceptance by the UN, EU and Western govts. of Islamophobia as a form of discrimination alongside anti-Semitism is clear. The widespread usage in mainstream media is clear. The widespread acceptance amongst sociologists is also clear. This was all discussed extensively at mediation. Spencer isn't a reliable source. The views of critics have been mentioned, but they may not be overstated so as to bring mainstream acceptance into disrepute. ITAQALLAH 23:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Arrow, please don't misrepresent sources, as you just did on the article. Opposition from "right wing commentators" does not make a term controversial. Especially when it notes the success of Runnymede in establishing a term which now has wide usage and recognition. ITAQALLAH 01:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Of corse it does. Labeling things "right wing commentators" and thus irrelevant is a very poor attempt to dismiss criticism of the concept. The very existance of legitimate criticism creates controversy, and reguradless of political orientation, it doesn't change the controversy, especially since all of the "commentators" are highly notable. Yahel Guhan 05:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not for you to decide what is "legitimate" criticism. It's also not for you to declare a reliable source's attribution of opposition to right-wing commentators as "a very poor attempt to dismiss criticism." You seem to think opposition from a minority makes a controversy. Criticism of the term is mentioned in the lead. Given its widespread acceptance, it doesn't merit mention in the opening sentenc. I don't know where any of you were during mediation, but all these arguments were soundly refuted, and the reliable sources are clear on the matter. ITAQALLAH 19:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Creating controversy is one thing, and giving it undue weight is another. For example, antisemitism is a contentious concept as well, it has aroused many controversies. Yet those are relatively insignificant in relation to the entire concept. Similarly, there may be controversy with Islamophobia, but putting it in the first sentence is unacceptable. Islam is the subject of controversies, do we then define it as a "controversial religion"?Bless sins (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Who says antisemitism is "contentious"? Antisemites and neo-nazis. WP:UNDUE doesn't apply here, because nobody is given undue weight. One word in the introduction sentence is not undue weight. The only "controversy" is over whether or not certian antisemitic actions are antisemitic. There is no comparision between antisemitism and islamophobia, and I find the comparision rather insulting. If you wish to define islam as a "controversial religion," that is fine with me. Yahel Guhan 05:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Opinions aside, Sefringle, your claims about Islamophobia are utterly ill-founded. It is recognised by the European Union as a valid form of discrimination alongside antisemitism. It is recognised by the United Nations as a valid form of discrimination alongside antisemitism. It is recognised in reliable scholarly sources as a valid form of discrimination alongside antisemitism. Moreover, we have reliable sources confirming widespread usage and acceptance of this term, and you can find it being used frequently in mainstream media. This is all overwhelming evidence, but you have not responded to any of that. Instead, you have been favouring the views of a few commentators, and repeating Arrow's utter misrepresentation of Poole, in continuing this WP:UNDUE vio of the lead sentence. ITAQALLAH 19:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

One word, placed in that location, is UNDUE weight. "Who says antisemitism is "contentious"?" Anyone who has been wrongly accused of it. "There is no comparision between antisemitism and islamophobia," I find you refusal to treat Muslims equally as Jews to be insulting.Bless sins (talk) 05:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't get the point. The words have different associations. One word is often used in a misleading way, the other is not. Arrow740 (talk) 08:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually both words are often used in missleading ways. // Liftarn (talk)

Lets face the facts. We completed a failed mediation, where these exact same arguements were presented, and it resolved nothing. I, arrow, matt, etc. have no intention of allowing the removial of "controversial" in the first sentense, and bless sins, itaqallah, etc. have no intention of allowing it. I don't see how this can possibly be resolved. I suggest you who want it removed think of a compromise they would accept that mentions that the topic is "controversial." Yahel Guhan 03:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

As far I know, the mediation is still continuing, is it not? Secondly, Yahel Guhan's analysis is wrong. "bless sins, itaqallah, etc. have no intention of allowing it" That's not true. Itaqallah and I have not intention of allowing a violation of wiki policies. But perhaps your primary objective here is not to satisfy wiki polcieis, but insert the word "controversial".Bless sins (talk) 12:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's face the real facts: you refuse the face the arguments presented head on. You refuse to recognise validation from global authorities, world governments, mainstream media, and academic circles. Any time it's brought up, you ignore it, and persist with this view that criticism from a few commentators brings the whole established concept into disrepute. The only one who even bothered to properly participate in arguing for inclusion in the lead sentence was Matt, so I don't understand how you are included in "we". The compromise has been to mention that some people criticise the term in the lead. Miring the topic in confusion and controversy is completely unacceptable given the overwhelming evidence against such a notion. ITAQALLAH 15:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And aside from this general pointery, you continue to misrepresent the Encyclopedia of Race and Ethnic studies. It says absolutely nothing about the term being controversial. In fact, it says the term is widely recognised and used. ITAQALLAH 15:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That is a purposeful misreading of the text. You cannot deny that there are many prominent critics of the term. Arrow740 (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a purposeful misreading of the text. It attributes controversy nowhere (this is simply what you interpret). It says precisely the opposite. It then says that criticism has come from right wing commentators who claim it is non-existent, or justified (!). The presence of opposition doesn't make it worth mentioning in the very first sentence, nor does it make it inherently controversial, especially not when it is widely accepted. This is a matter of giving undue weight to a minority. ITAQALLAH 22:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a liberal Muslim criticizing the term: [20]. "the conflation of “Islamophobia” is intentional by Islamists to deflect Americans and the free world from the necessary debate of political ideologies." The lead should summarize the article, and the article relates controversy. That's enough. Arrow740 (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the link you picked addresses the arguments raised (He's also clearly wrong, unless the EU, the UN, the British and other governments, the mainstream media and scholarly sociological circles are also part of this Islamist network seeking to stymie debate.) You seem to be claiming that because some political commentators criticise the term, that it is inherently controversial. We have sources indicating that it isn't. I shouldn't need to repeat the evidences that have been mentioned above. The lead, by the way, does summarize the article, as it gives coverage to the criticism. ITAQALLAH 22:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"We have sources indicating that it isn't." Again, you don't have a single source indicating the term is not controversial. Arrow740 (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have mentioned the relevant aspects here and at the beginning of this section. These all indicate widespread acceptance and recognition. The "controversy" (i.e. antagonism from some political commentators, characterised as 'right-wing', already mentioned in the lead) does not engulf the topic. The plentiful reliable sources on the matter (e.g. Islamophobia#References) discuss Islamophobia plainly as a matter of sociological study. ITAQALLAH 23:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, of course there is a phenomenon of a priori hatred or dislike of Muslims. Negative feelings toward "Islam" are quite different. You don't understand what I'm saying. You've found sources stating that the term indicates some widespread acceptance. That is a different issue from the controversy surrounding it. Not one of the sources you've quoted states "the term is not controversial." In fact you did quote one stating that the term is criticized; that's the one I used in the intro. Arrow740 (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand this request that sources must be presented claiming the term isn't controversial (which is a negative assertion; a positive assertion would be to claim widespread acceptance). Any term can be misused, so that's not the issue; the issue surrounds claims that it is inherently controversial. The academic sources I have been directing people to speak of Islamophobia as a matter of fact. For example, Poole in EoR&ES says: "Islamophobia is evident in the discrimination experienced by Muslims in employment, health, education and their exclusion from politics." When the scholarly sociological sources corroborate on accepting the reality of Islamophobia, and they do, then it directly suggests the term isn't as controversial as some are trying to depict. Of course, it's going to be controversial to those who oppose the concept, but it's clear that the mainstream view is not such. Official acceptance and usage by the United Nations, the European Union (which regularly has experts such as Chris Allen and Jorgen Nielsen producing reports on Islamophobia in Europe), and major world governments indicates that they too accept the term without much trouble. That they accept it and use it alongside terms like antisemitism shows quite clearly they don't believe it to be controversial (how could they, while publishing authoritative reports on it?). Including "controversial" in the lead sentence is thus an overstatement of the protests of some political commentators (who, in most cases, are not experts in sociology). Specific criticism has been mentioned in the lead, but misleading comments about controversy certainly have no place there, especially not in the opening sentence. ITAQALLAH 02:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why the Runnymede Trust's definition should be the one in the intro. "dread or hatred of Islam and therefore, to the fear and dislike of all Muslims" is a completely facile implication. It's completely stupid, and immediately implies that people like Ali Sina and Salman Rushdie hate their families. Arrow740 (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

In principle, attention should be given to how Runnymede explained the term, as they are credited with bringing it into public dialogue. The passage removed was appropriately sourced I believe. ITAQALLAH 02:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok well I'm glad to announce that we've finally found a ref for the term controversial and it couldnt be a more perfect fit. If all the controversy wasnt enough for us to justify the use of the word controversial ourselves (and we do it all the time for these kinds of words on wikipedia without cites), professor Alan Aldridge (Associate Professor & Reader School of Sociology & Social Policy, Faculty of Social Sciences, Law and Education) has said "'Islamophobia', like all key concepts, is controversial". He probably saw these edit wars and thought he'd let us help us out and let us work in other more important areas so he made this mention. Actually the book is from 2000. The term is controversial, needless to say as argued in the mediation page and here, but if you need a cite, there it is now. Lets write him a thank you note now. Now, unless we see a reliable source saying its not a controversial term, then we will have to reword it but for now, this is how it is. So thankfully, this controversial (pun intended) matter is closed now. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 05:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Try looking at the sources again. Official acceptance of the term as a form of discrimination occured in 2001, as proven above "The next step in the development towards an official acceptance of the concept and phenomenon of 'Islamophobia' occured in January 2001, when expressions of Islamophobia were officially accepted as signs of intolerance, in line with racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia, by the Stockholm International Forum on Combating Intolerance. Many governments had previously hesitated to link Islamophobia with other forms of intolerance. As a result of this forum's declaration one can expect the concept 'Islamophobia' will have a greater impact on the international arena in the near future." (New Muslims in the European Context: The Experience of Scandinavian Converts - p. 53, Brill 2004). Your source was published in 2000. We have at least three much more recent sources showing widespread acceptance, and one comparitively outdated source published when official acceptance hadn't occured. The balance hasn't shifted due to POV-mining an outdated quote, and it's still WP:UNDUE to favour one source over the masses of other RS accepting it. It certainly doesn't merit mention in the opening sentence. ITAQALLAH 17:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What? Acceptance doesnt mean the term is not controversial. We're using the word the source has used so whats the problem? "Outdated" is not a reason. For that manner you could say "its not a neologism since when the sources called it that, a lot of time has passed and so lets not call it that either". As again, the acceptance of a term doesnt mean its not controversial and also, plus as we know, the term has been widely contested before and even today so its "acceptance" as something valid is still disputed and debated. Whether we're talking about the meaning of the term or its usage, the term is controversial as the source has called it. And when you're talking about a word's usage in the history of language, a few years doesnt change anything so from 2000 to 2004 or even 2008 isnt a big deal. Also, there's no source that says that the term is not controversial. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If it's controversial, it means a substantial number of people don't accept it. If it's widely accepted, it means it's not considered controversial to most. It is widely accepted today. Refer to the EU, the UN, the mass of scholarly sources, and the 51 states which signed a declaration to combat Islamophobia. You're ignoring all of this. You've found one source and you are now pushing it over everything else just because it favours your position in a content dispute. That's more of a behavioural issue than a genuine content concern. ITAQALLAH 20:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No, thats not the meaning of controversial. The word controversial has a wider meaning that just "accepted/used":

A controversy or dispute is a matter of opinion over which parties actively disagree, argue, or debate. Controversies can range in size from private disputes between two individuals to large-scale disagreements between societies.

The controversy of the term is described in the Views section where as you know, almost as many people talk for this term, as they talk against it. According to the dictionary meaning of controversial, the term is controversial and thats what the source says. You cant remove a reference just because its only one reference. There are many statements in wikipedia each with a single reference.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yet again, you simply ignore the masses of evidence that is against you. Can you respond to the 51 states from the Stockholm conference? Can you respond to the passages verifying widespread acceptance, the EU, and the UN? Stop avoiding these points. As the word is widely accepted, and by world authorities, there is absolutely no need to mention "controversial" in the opening sentence. ITAQALLAH 20:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] section break

Why do you think half of news sources talking about "Islamophobia" use the word in quotes? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you search "Islamophobia" by itself instead of 'Islamophobia+controversial"? The latter is just POV-mining for sources which endorse your view. See also [21] ITAQALLAH 20:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are you giving me a BBC.co search? Looks like mining to me as well, according to your standards. With a clean search, there are a lot of news sources that use quotes while using the term. Here's the thing again in case you missed it:

1. The term Islamophobia is widely contested. Its meaning is denied by a lot of people even today (see the views section). This hotly disputed, contested and debated term is thus significantly controversial.
2. This is what the source says i.e, its controversial.

So where's the problem? And you're bringing sources in to push your own POV that the term is accepted. Is the term accepted by everyone? Ofcourse not. The Views section shows its not.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think User:AA was mining when he first provided that BBC link.

I note that you have tried to divert attention away from the news searched I provided you.

Your comments about 'hotly debated', 'widely contested' are wild exaggerations - yet at the same time you're trying to claim that "controversial" doesn't mean it's not widely accepted! Do you realise that? You've unconvincingly tried to explain away the reliable sources which contradict you, clinging onto this lone sentence, in denial of whole paragraphs and publications. See WP:UNDUE. I might be willing to entertain suggestions of compromise, but insertion into the lead sentence is not acceptable. ITAQALLAH 20:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have suggested a compromise version which is far more balanced given the widespread acceptance. ITAQALLAH 21:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I havent evaluated your change yet, but you removed the "Encyclopedia of Race and Ethnic studies p. 218, Routledge 2003" first saying it says nothing about Controversy. Now you've put it back in, can you explain? Have you seen the source for yourself? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't put it back in. Of course I've seen the source, I was the one presenting it months ago. I'm surprised you've forgotten this. The relevant quote is at the beginning of this section. It mentions controversy not once, and to suggest otherwise is a distortion of the source and OR. ITAQALLAH 22:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

So that source also confirms that its controversial i.e. it says "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." - if people are rejecting the word's existence or and all the stuff in the criticism section too. I dont get it, I've told you a source that has specifically called the term controversial and this is a very reliable source (professor), so what is the problem? I dont agree with your changed, obviously. Sorry, the term is controversial, a source has called it that, and the Views section confirm this. Why do you think the word is not controversial? Other than "its accepted and used widely". --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 05:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't say it's controversial, that's your manipulation of the source. It in fact says widely recognised and used, a fact you're refusing to concede. ITAQALLAH 16:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Your quote shows the opposite. It shows that there the term is "widely recognized". Ofcourse there will always be people who reject something. There are those who reject antisemitism, those who reject the Holocaust and those who reject the round earth. You can't give such people undue weight. Apparently you insist on giving the critics POV more weight than the rest of POVs combined (by making "controversial" one of the first words in the article). Why? I don't see it being done at antisemitism.Bless sins (talk) 06:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You took out the wrong ref. The one you took out said the term was controversial. The one you meant you take out said some people deny the term's existence. The controversy issue is decided due to the author calling it controversial and majorly, the wide amount of criticism the term receives. The holocuast doesnt get a lot of criticism so the example is invalid. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 06:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is protected now due to edit wars. Itaqallah, here's the point in another way: A very high academic source calls it a controversial term. Many opposing views dispute the term. For you to make the argument that because such and such organizations or groups of people said the word is widely accepted and used and thus the term is not controversial, is OR. The fact that the book is written in 2000, doesnt mean that the word is not controversial any more. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 12:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Many "very high academics" say it is widely accepted, yet you are trying to claim it's controversial because it's "hotly disputed." You even try to twist what the EoRE says. You then try to cite political commentators (the only reliable critic is Halliday, whose views I inserted) who aren't academics themselves but of a known partisan leaning, as if that stands up to the mass of reliable sources accepting it as fact.

You are deliberately ignoring the evidences against you: you have no response to the fact that it was officially accepted in '01 by 51 countries as well as NGOs and other delegates. You have no response to the multiple reliable sources showing widespread acceptance. You have no response to the publications by the EU and UN which themselves officially accept it. Instead, you prop up a single sentence from a single source, and inflate its worth beyond everything else and claim it merits mention in the opening sentence, solely because it coincides with your aim of muddying a term which is widely accepted. You then try to tout this academic as "very high", even though until now you haven't cared about what academics say except by trying to brush them aside. This is patent disruption, and has been continuing throughout RfC and mediation. As a last ditch effort to compromise, I allowed mention the word "controversy" in the lead, but you rejected it as it doesn't seemingly overwhelm the article, which of course it shouldn't.

I think this is getting perilously close to ArbCom - not as a content dispute - but as a behavioural dispute given your continued POV-pushing, and Yahel Guhan's (who doesn't appear to care much for the talk page, nor does he appear to have any clue what the sources say) constant disruption. It won't look good on any of us, so I suggest you accept my good-faith attempt at compromise and stop ignoring widespread acceptance. ITAQALLAH 16:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Please dont make false accusations. I dont think I moved the position of the EoRE reference. I left it where it was where I found it. Also dont accuse me or others of POV pushing, this is what you do as well all the time (remember the 'Beating' issue which you just abandoned recently after another long debate? Similarly for FFI's notability). I'm sorry but again, for you to assume that the term is not controversial and for you to ignore this academic's evaluation of the term in explicit terms, for you to deduce that "since so and so accepts the term, it is not controversial", is OR. The reason why Alan A. called it (please read the complete context) controversial is not because its not widely accepted or used. Its because of the disagreement of what the term means, or if it exists and so on (everything in the Views section). This is not something which was limited to the year 2000. It is still valid. The term is as controversial as it was in the beginning. You can call the community's help on this if you like in any way. I will abide by the consensus of whatever they decide is the correct thing to do here. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Re EoRE: I'm not talking about the article, I'm talking about this talk page.

Re "Beating": I withdrew from that dispute as per WP:DNFT - I think I made that clear, so I don't know why you're bringing it up as some sort of attempt at tu quoque. I'm happy to discuss FFI's notability again, you even admitted that most sources don't even discuss it.

Red herrings aside, we can return to the substance of the debate. You haven't read your source properly, you're explaining its use of controversial with your own reasons. So much for trying to tell me about OR. As for "ignoring", you've been doing just that to the overwhelming evidence against you. I'm going to list it all again below so you can consider it very carefully, and so that you have another chance to respond to it.

I responded to this appeal to negative proof a long while back, so I needn't repeat myself. In short: rarely do sources discuss in negatory terms (how many sources can you find saying Antisemitism, evolution etc. are "not controversial"?). "since so and so accepts the term, it is not controversial" Please don't construct straw men, I've provided numerous sources stating widespread acceptance and usage of the sources. I've also shown that almost all of the sociological reliable sources available on the topic recognise Islamophobia as a prevalent form of discrimination. As if that wasn't enough, I've shown that official world governing bodies recognise Islamophobia as a prevalent form of discrimination. Furthermore I've shown copious usage in mainstream media. This all shows that the mainstream view is that of recognition of Islamophobia on par with Antisemitism and Xenophobia. You were pretty quiet in the face of all this evidence, as you were after it was hammered home that the definition wasn't controversial in mediation. Until, that is, you found one sentence from one source on google books. Now, you're just repeating your old arguments all over again and decorating it with this single sentence you've unearthed.

"The term is as controversial as it was in the beginning." Now that's original research. "... disagreement of what the term means, or if it exists and so on... " I think you've not a clue what you're talking about. Nobody disagrees that Islamophobia refers to "anti-Islam/Muslim prejudice" - not Halliday, and not Aldrige. Neither dispute that anti-Muslim prejudice/discrimination exists. You're trying to paint all dissenting views as under one umbrella. Don't bother pointing to the Views section, I had been very lenient about sourcing during mediation. Prager, Ellian, Kimball etc. would not meet the standards of WP:RS.

Will you accept my compromise attempt? I don't see the use of further RfC's and mediations. We are fast running out of ways to resolve this dispute. ITAQALLAH 04:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yet they all agree the term is overused. In fact none of the sources you brought up state anything about the abusive usage of the term. It is the abusive overusage of the term that makes the concept controversial. It seems we are running out of ways to resolve this dispute. On that, I'll agree with you. Yahel Guhan 01:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hold on... the sources say the term is widely used and recognised, not "overused" which implies it is being used more than it should (that might be your view, but it's not what the RS are saying)

Using the term incorrectly doesn't make the concept itself controversial. I think it's like saying incorrect usage of the word antisemitism (i.e. in denouncing critics of Israel, for example) makes the concept of antisemitism itself controversial. Of course, that's not the case.

I'm pretty sure you said some time ago you'd accept a compromise so long as it mentioned controversy in the lead. I have attempted to make good-faith concessions in order to broker a resolution. This is the version of the lead I propose (I would consider any slight variations proposed also), which mentions controversy without it overwhelming the article. Is that something you can accept in good faith, for the sake of compromise and so that we can better spend our time on more productive issues? ITAQALLAH 03:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The sources state that it is overused, being an attempt to dismiss criticism of islam as racism, and that makes it controversial. So yeah, it is incorrect usage. Criticism of Islael and its relationship to antisemitism makes controversy only with New Antisemitism. The vast majority of other antisemitism is not controversial in the same sense that islamophobia is, where most of the labelings are disputed either by the parties themselves or by others, making most usages of the term highly controversial. That is the main difference here.

Like I said, the number one issue for me in this article is the word "controversial" being in the first sentence. Other than that, I have one other change I'd like to see: the word "allege" in the last paragraph should be changed to the more neutral term: "state." Other than that, there is nothing wrong with your proposed lead. After all, this is the only thing I am reverting over. I think the other issues, for the most part have been resolved. Yahel Guhan 03:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"The sources state that it is overused, being an attempt to dismiss criticism of islam as racism" - that's what the critics say (not all of whom are RS), not what the many academic sources cited below say. I don't agree with your analysis: even with those who dispute the terminology specified by Runnymede, such as Halliday, accept that the sentiment that Islamophobia is supposed to denote actually does exist and is a problem.

As for using controversial, I have made a concession by allowing mention of it in the lead despite the obvious widespread acceptance by the EU, UN, world governments etc. Can you make a concession and allow its mention in the third paragraph (instead of the opening sentence which is a major WP:UNDUE problem, see the sources below) where the issue of acceptance and criticism is discussed? That seems like a fair compromise to me. ITAQALLAH 04:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The sources below say nothing about criticism of islam. The term is controversial for three reasons. 1. the belief that the concept doesn't exist, 2. excessive overusage, meaning it is being used to dismiss criticism of islam as a prejudice. and 3. controversies over exactly what the word means. Your sources answer point 1. If point one was the only issue, it would be undue weight. They do not answer, address, or come into conflict with points 2 or 3, so there WP:UNDUE or WP:FRINGE does not apply. Widespread acceptance of something can still mean it is an overused term. Many of the opponents to the term never themselves say that islamophobia exists. While some do, others don't; rather they just say it is overused. That is why it is controversial, and that is why I believe the controversy must be mentioned in the first paragraph, preferibly in the first sentence. Yahel Guhan 03:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No. The issue of "controversial" is being pushed because of one sentence in one source - with complete avoidance of the masses of sources provided below. The three points you raise are more your own synthesis than a reflection of the reliable sources. It doesn't matter how many angles try to disparage the widely accepted term from, if the reliable sources don't bother discussing it in any depth, then it's a clear signal that it isn't as significant as you are trying to portray. Please explain why controversy can't be mentioned in the third paragraph where acceptance/criticism is being discussed, especially in the light of acceptance by world governing bodies and by the majority of academic sources. ITAQALLAH 17:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yahel said it all. You guys are thinking "controversial" means "not widely used". Even Salman Rushdie used the word. The controversy pertains to the actual meaning of the word and its use in silencing the criticism of Islam etc. Are you guys saying there is no controversy surrounding this word? Is that what you're saying? Here's an article from a few days ago which against attacks this word. This disagreement between the word's meaning and its use is going to continue. Controversy does not mean that its not widely used, especially when a profession of sociology says, you have to take his opinion into account. Kofi Annan and others were just acting like hippies when they said "lets stop all forms of hatred, lets stop people who hate Apples and tell them that apples are lovable. Lets stop this Applephobia". You know what those guys were wanting to do. This is what they do all the time. They're peace hippies and try to say positive things and stop the hatred wherever they find it. As ambassodors, this is their job. Do these people have any qualifications in talking about Islamophobia more than Salman Rushdie has? The word is controversial. This doesnt put a negative meaning on the word. It just puts it in the middle. Its a word where there's a strong division and disagreement on the meaning and use of the word. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You're amalgamating all the criticism as if it's uniform and of the same type in order to overstate the opposition. I think this reflects a highly superficial understanding of the real issue. The epithet of antisemitism is also misused frequently and this is mentioned in reliable sources, so what? The concepts of God and evolution are also far more criticised than this, so what? You said "you have to take his opinion into account", but you certainly aren't taking the majority of sources into account. I haven't said the term isn't criticised, but you aren't appreciating the fact that just because this is the case, it should not transcend everything else as if it's the most important fact about the term (reality check: it isn't). "This doesnt put a negative meaning on the word. It just puts it in the middle." Incorrect, it has a directly negative connotation when you put it before everything else.

"Its a word where there's a strong division and disagreement on the meaning and use of the word." Matt, that's pure exaggeration on your part. The only critic of academic stature who takes issue with Islamophobia appears to be Halliday. Halliday also states that Islamophobia is supposed to refer to anti-Muslim/Islam prejudice, and that this prejudice/discrimination does exist, he just prefers "Anti-Muslimism" as something which is more appropriate. Academics have also responded directly to his concerns (probably because he, like them, are academics). The rest are mainly just political commentators of certain leanings. Widespread use and recognition connotes acceptance (it wouldn't be used by those who didn't accept it). This is also where the doublespeak falls apart: on one hand you try to claim that widespread acceptance doesn't mean it's not controversial, yet at the same time you try claiming "strong division and disagreement" as evidence of controversy.

You haven't really responded to the official acceptance, you just brushed the reputed and respected world authorities off as "peace hippies", which isn't a real policy-based objection, doesn't affect their status as reliable sources, and is ultimately pretty meaningless.

You have currently failed to explain why controversy cannot be mentioned in the third paragraph alongside the issue of criticism/acceptance where it is most relevant. You are trying to establish controversy, and I've said that we can mention it but it cannot be in the first sentence, given that a) the first sentence discusses the definition which isn't disputed, b) isn't the most important fact about the term (if it was, all the reliable sources below would be mentioning it before everything else. None do) and c) the vast majority of academics and world organisations officially accept it. So please address my compromise proposal directly. ITAQALLAH 17:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The artificial "compromise" you mention is already present in the lead (the term is controversial etc). Thevast majority of academics do not accept the word as you have claimed. One seroius academic said the word is controversial. Just answer this simple question: Is the term ISlamophobia controversial? Not at all? Then why all the disagreement by notable people and scholars and sources? Why is the word used with quotes "" so many times in the media? I dont see what the big deal is with mentioning right away in the lead that this is a controversial term. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is the compromise proposal artificial? You have yet to explain. There is currently the POV version Yahel Guhan managed to retain by trying to ensure that protection landed on his version. "Thevast majority of academics do not accept the word as you have claimed." - see below, you haven't been able to respond to that yet. That "one serious academic" also accepts it as valid, it seems. In any case, I've provided "four serious academics", many "serious" world authorities (and the rest of the evidence available below) proving widespread and official acceptance, so you can stop ignoring the evidences against you. The term might be controversial, but any controversy shouldn't be mentioned anywhere near the first sentence given the reality of the matter as explained in points a), b) and c) (please do respond to them).

"... by notable people and scholars and sources... " Notable people is a red herring, you know that most of them aren't reliable. As for scholars, I see Halliday as the central critic. But the vast majority accept it as fact (including Halliday, who just prefers another term), you can see below for the proof.

"Why is the word used with quotes "" so many times in the media?" - Why is the word used without quotes so many more times than it is with quotes in the media?

"I dont see what the big deal is with mentioning right away in the lead that this is a controversial term." How about we start the lead off with mentioning "right away" that "Islamophobia is a widely accepted term which refers to..." given that we have 3-4 sources saying just that, as well as many, many other "serious" reliable sources affirming its validity (far more than the one sentence you have)? Location of material is important in a neutral presentation (see WP:NPOV). The criticism isn't the most important fact about the term, very few sources affirm controversy in fact (more affirm widespread acceptance, and the majority just discuss it as fact), so there is no reason for immediate mention of acceptance or rejection in the first sentence, which discusses the definition. ITAQALLAH 22:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

As explained in substantial detail above, we can do without 'controversial' in the first sentence. I have presented a compromise version which gives the aspect of acceptance/controversy equal, fair and sensible coverage in the lead. If that's too difficult to accept, we can always assert acceptance in the opening sentence given the superior source mass. I would, however, prefer an opening sentence which is reserved, neutral and unjudgemental. ITAQALLAH 23:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

<r>How can you pass off a word that is so controversial and full of disputes as if there's no controversy surrounding it? I'll ask you this: In what sense do you think Alan Albridge called the term controversial? If you want to use "widely used, yet controversial term", that is fine with me. Lets just do what the sources are calling it. The term is controversial, you have said it yourself as well. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as you have now responded, could you please address my post dated 22:54 20 January 2008 UTC - I see no need to repeat the points raised therein as to why this descriptor should be nowhere near the first sentence (e.g. last para, points a, b, and c, etc.)- I spent much of that post explaining this very point. Thanks. ITAQALLAH 16:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok fine, I am ok with the first sentence only dedicated to what the term means. The controversy and stuff can be put in immediately after the defination. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with is being in the first paragraph in general. I think it's wrong to discuss controversy before any mention of the word's history, or Runnymede's popularisation of it (the controversy occured after it), or the meanings commonly associated with it. But I'm glad we're moving forward here. We can both make compromises and have an end result that we'll both be satisfied with. ITAQALLAH 18:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Any feedback on this? ITAQALLAH 15:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Based upon the recent discussions, I have compiled a proposal viewable below. I moved the criticism/controversy point up and merged it into the second paragraph. I also reduced the source bulleting because we only need one or two sources to verify the sentences, and it helps us take up less space. ITAQALLAH 13:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

Islamophobia is a neologism that refers to prejudice or discrimination against Islam or Muslims.^[1] The term dates back to the late 1980s,^[2] but came into common usage after the September 11, 2001 attacks.^[3] In 1997, the British Runnymede Trust stated that the term also refers to the practice of discriminating against Muslims by excluding them from the economic, social, and public life of the nation. It includes the perception that Islam has no values in common with other cultures, is inferior to the West and is a violent political ideology rather than a religion.^[4] Steps were taken toward official acceptance of the term in January 2001 at the "Stockholm International Forum on Combating Intolerance", where Islamophobia was recognized as a form of intolerance alongside Xenophobia and Antisemitism.^[5]

Sources have suggested an increasing trend in Islamophobia, some of which attribute it to the September 11 attacks,^[6] while others associate it with the increased presence of Muslims in the Western world.^[7] In May 2002 the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), a European Union watchdog, released a report entitled "Summary report on Islamophobia in the EU after 11 September 2001", which described an increase in Islamophobia-related incidents in European member states post-9/11.^[8] Although the term is widely recognized and used, it has not been without controversy.^[9] Opponents allege that it is often misused to undermine legitimate criticism of Islam,^[10][11] and call it a "myth".^[10] Novelist Salman Rushdie and others signed a manifesto entitled Together facing the new totalitarianism in March 2006 calling Islamophobia a "wretched concept that confuses criticism of Islam as a religion and stigmatization of those who believe in it."^[12] Some opponents argue that Islamophobia is justified.^[9]

[edit] Sources, again

Academic sources verifying widespread usage and acceptance

• "In recent years, the phenomenon of Islamophobia (see World in focus below) has become recognized as one of the clearest expressions of racial intolerance in a different and growing form", "Islamophobia has become a widely used term and a major form of racial intolerance." (Sociology: Making Sense of Society - p. 315, 2005)
• "The next step in the development towards an official acceptance of the concept and phenomenon of 'Islamophobia' occured in January 2001, when expressions of Islamophobia were officially accepted as signs of intolerance, in line with racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia, by the Stockholm International Forum on Combating Intolerance. Many governments had previously hesitated to link Islamophobia with other forms of intolerance. As a result of this forum's declaration one can expect the concept 'Islamophobia' will have a greater impact on the international arena in the near future." (New Muslims in the European Context: The Experience of Scandinavian Converts - p. 53, Brill 2004) - [The official acceptance alluded to is discussed below]
• "The Runnymede Trust has been successful in that the term Islamophobia is now widely recognized and used, though many right-wing commentators either reject its existence or argue that it is justified." (Encyclopedia of Race and Ethnic studies p. 218, Routledge 2003)
• "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 in the West: From Sojourners to Citizens (2002) Oxford University Press p. 19)

Academic material recognising Islamophobia as a form of discrimination

Mentioned in the article

• Encyclopedia of Race and Ethnic Studies. (2003). Ed. Cashmore, E. Routledge. 
• Benn, T.; Jawad, H. (2004). Muslim Women in the United Kingdom and Beyond: Experiences and Images. Brill. ISBN 9004125817. 
• Egorova, Y.; Parfitt, T. (2003). Jews, Muslims, and Mass Media: Mediating the 'Other'. London: Routledge Curzon. ISBN 0415318394. 
• Haddad, Y. (2002). Muslims in the West: From Sojourners to Citizens. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195148053. 
• Johnson, M. R. D.; Soydan, H; Williams, C. (1998). Social Work and Minorities: European Perspectives. London; New York: Routledge. ISBN 0415169623. 
• Miles, R.; Brown, M. (2003). Racism. London; New York: Routledge. ISBN 0415296765. 
• van Driel, B. (2004). Confronting Islamophobia In Educational Practice. Trentham Books. ISBN 1858563402. 
• Gottschalk, P.; Greenberg, G. (2007). Islamophobia: Making Muslims the Enemy. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield publishers. ISBN 978-0742552869. 
• Greaves, R. (2004). Islam and the West Post 9/11. Ashgate publishing Ltd. ISBN 0754650057. 
• Kaplan, Jeffrey (2006). Islamophobia in America?: September 11 and Islamophobic Hate Crime, Terrorism and Political Violence (Routledge), 18:1, 1 - 33.
• Pynting, Scott; Mason, Victoria (2007). The resistible rise of Islamophobia: Anti-Muslim racism in the UK and Australia before 11 September 2001. Journal of Sociology, The Australian Sociological Association. 43(1): 61–86.
• Quraishi, M. (2005). Muslims and Crime: A Comparative Study. Ashgate publishing Ltd. ISBN 075464233X. 
• Ramadan, T. (2004). Western Muslims and the Future of Islam. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 019517111X. 

This is a small fraction of the academic material available on the topic. There is much more available, but I haven't the time for an exhaustive search. For preliminary refs, see:

• Hussein, Asifa; Miller, William M. (2006) Multicultural Nationalism: Islamophobia, Anglophobia, and Devolution. Oxford University Press ISBN. 0199280711
• Hosain, Zohair; Rosenbaum, David M. "Perceiving Islam:The Causes and Consequences of Islamophobia in Western Media" In: Saha, SC. "Religious Fundamentalism in the Contemporary World: Critical Social and Political Issues" (2003) Lexington Books. ISBN 0739107607
• Allen, Chris (2005) Islamophobia. Ashgate Publishing Ltd. ISBN 0754651401

Official acceptance by world authorities and organisations

• Diamantopoulou, Anna. (2003) The Fight Against Anti-semitism and Islamophobia: Bringing Communities Together European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia.
• Allen, Chris; Nielsen, Jorgen S.; Summary report on Islamophobia in the EU after 11 September 2001 (May 2002), European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia.
• Ramberg, Ingrid. (2004) Islamophobia and Its Consequences on Young People. Council of Europe. ISBN 9287156735
• "Muslims in the European Union: Discrimination and Islamophobia" (2006) EUMC.
• Unlearning Intolerance: Confronting Islamophobia. UN Chronicle
• Stockholm International Conference on Combating Intolerance:
  • "Representatives from 51 countries attended the conference. Among many others, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson and OSCE Secretary General Ján Kubis were present. The participants also included representatives from the European Union, the Council of Europe and a number of NGOs, scholars, journalists and professionals from around the world."
  • "A Declaration was also adopted at this second conference. It emphasised the determination of all participating states to combat genocide, ethnic cleansing, racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia and xenophobia, and to combat all racial discrimination and the intolerance associated with it."

Also, refer to common usage in mainstream media ( e.g. BBC, Reuters, Google books.) Again, the media servey is a sample, and not exhaustive. ITAQALLAH 04:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's some:

• Eugene Rogan. "No Debate: Middle East Studies in Europe". Middle East Report, No. 205, Middle East Studies Networks: The Politics of a Field. (Oct. - Dec., 1997), pp. 22-24
• Ali S. Asani . "'So That You May Know One Another': A Muslim American Reflects on Pluralism and Islam." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 588, Islam: Enduring Myths and Changing Realities. (Jul., 2003), pp. 40-51.
• Ali A. Mazrui. "Between the Crescent and the Star-Spangled Banner: American Muslims and US Foreign Policy". International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 72, No. 3, Ethnicity and International Relations. (Jul., 1996), pp. 493-506.

Bless sins (talk) 05:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Islamophobia, a neologism

I've made this minor addition. The word is obviously a neologism (which also mentions Islamphobia and puts its date of usage as 1991, which is ofcourse, recent), which means :

A neologism is a word, term, or phrase which has been recently created (or "coined"), often to apply to new concepts, to synthesize pre-existing concepts, or to make older terminology sound more contemporary. Neologisms are especially useful in identifying inventions, new phenomena, or old ideas that have taken on a new cultural context. The term "e-mail", as used today, is an example of a neologism.

Also, the article is placed in Category:Political neologisms. I was just clarifying this here so no one edit wars over it. A neologism is a new word or concept and this one is. Any disagreements? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Matt57, I'd like it if a reliable source was found that called Islamophobia as a 'neologism'. I'll let it remain for now, giving you ample time to find a source (take 6 weeks if you want). But if it becomes clear that there is no source, but wikipedia, calls this term a 'neologism' then I'll begin to have objections.Bless sins (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was pretty obvious that its a Neologism. The neologism page says that 'hyperspace' is a neologism, and this was one was made in 1934 and Islamophobia came up in the 1980's. Any way, I've added the cite now, I found more in journals, but these two from books are enough. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Your citations are appreciated.Bless sins (talk) 04:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit protected

{{editprotected}} Vandalism by IP has persisted in protected version, and needs to be undone. ITAQALLAH 16:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. Sandstein (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Verification failed

The lead says "Opponents, consisting of right-wing commentators, university professors, and former muslims...". The source however, only says that "right-wing commentators" oppose the term. Even if we grant that Rushdie would qualify as a "former Muslim", the source, however, does not say "university professors".

Either the source is quoted wrong (the page number has been mistyped), or this is original research. A source for the claim should be found, if not, the claim should be removed.Bless sins (talk) 05:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Just say 'opponents.' There's little need to classify everyone who has opposed it, and it is factually inaccurate to say that they all claim (especially the university professors) that it is a device to undermine, or is a "myth". ITAQALLAH 17:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Just "opponents" is the best, most accurate, and least POV way to put it. The other addition , including the right wing stuff is also unsourced. If nobody else objects by tomarrow, I will request an editprotected to make this change, since it seems there is consensus for it. Yahel Guhan 06:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

While the main issue of protection hasn't been resolved, it appears we have consensus for this edit. In the lead, where it says "Opponents, consisting of right-wing commentators, university professors, and former muslims" please replace it with just "Opponents." Yahel Guhan 03:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done DMacks (talk) 07:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the source does say "right wing commentators". The source says :

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

Thus, you can clearly see that the source does specify a group (and only one group).Bless sins (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Opponents as seen later in the article include university professors and other people. Its not limited to right wing commentators. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean one professor really (i.e. Halliday, to whom many other academics have responded). As for Ellian, a law professor is likely not a reliable source here. "Other people" seems to be referring to other political commentators. ITAQALLAH 22:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, we don't have a source that says that university professors are a notable/significant form of opposition. I'm not saying that no professors oppose it, but they're (or he's, as Itaqallah said there's only professor) insignificant.Bless sins (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand we have a source that points to right wing commentators (and them only) as a source for opposition.Bless sins (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chronological order

The list of Islamophobic events given should atleast be arranged in chronological order. We should also try to write in paragraph form rather than bulleted lists.Bless sins (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Listing is generally poor style. ITAQALLAH 16:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

yes, that change should be made once we resolve the other issues. Yahel Guhan 02:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opinions

You can't just label a bunch of people's opinions as a 'phobia'. Also, saying that people who think women in Saudi Arabia don't have as many rights as in the rest of the world is not racism, it is a proven fact. The way I see it, this page acts like any criticism about the way some people in the middle east act is as ignorant as thinking slavery should be re-instated, but it is not, a lot of it is based on facts. And the things that aren't based on facts are opinions, not a 'phobia'. There is anti-Islamic sentiment, but if you think that women have rights in Saudi Arabia, why don't you go there and find out for yourself.

Is there any thing here that isn't covered in these many articles?

   * Anti-Arabism
   * Clash of Civilizations
   * Criticism of Islam
   * Criticism of kemalism
   * Islamic terrorism
   * Islamofascism
   * Islamophilia
   * Islamophobia Watch
   * Persecution of Muslims
   * Religious intolerance

This article should be stripped down to how the use of the term is, not a jumbling of all of these articles. Contralya (talk) 05:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Your post is misguided. How does criticizing the rights of women in Saudi Arabia have to do with an irrational fear of Muslims or Islam? Those women in Saudia Arabia, after all, are primarily Muslim. Would you be afraid of them if you had met them? Islamophobia is a fear of Muslims and Islam; critiques don't necessarily imply an irrational fear or hatred of Muslims. There are Muslim feminists, for example, that critique Islam frequently while still considering themselves to be Muslim. Calling Islam a "totalitarian" religon or even equating it with such terminologies, for example, is irrational. Islam (or even Islamism) have nothing in common with totalitarian ideology, which actually owes its origins to the Western world. I don't really understand where you are going here. I can't even find any links in here that suggest Saudia Arabian rights are appropriate by secular humanist or Muslim standards. Several of those articles don't need to be merged because they are different topics. Islamofascism is a much more politicized neologism that is worthy of its own separate article. Anti-Arabism has nothing to do with religion. Less than 20% of all Muslims are Arabs, mind you. Many of those other subjects (e.g. Clash of Civilizations) are only partially related to this article. This article is in no way different than articles on Antisemitism or Christianophobia. Would you suggest that those articles be deleted, also? -Rosywounds (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Think you know everything? This reminds me of not being able to call anyone who is African-American 'articulate'. I am saying that this article is about a mis-interpretation. For example, say someone refers to the middle east when they are talking about terrorists, that doesn't mean that they think that everyone in the middle east is a terrorist... Just because it is pointed out that most of the terrorists are Islamic fundamentalists, doesn't mean that a person thinks that Islam is evil. The other articles cover anti-Islamic sentiment. This article just looks like it is about an interpretation of words used at a republican party debate. There is a fear of Islam, but it is not anything like anti-antisemitism. And why is that you can get killed for naming a teddy bear Mohammad, anyway? Contralya (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not think I know everything, but I am assertive with what I do know. You are not particularly articulate yourself. The literacy rate in Sudan is 61%. The literacy rate in Turkey 87%. Not surprisingly, Muslims in Turkey aren't "killing people for naming teddy bears Muhammad." You are excluding a lot of other factors. None of the other articles you listed directly touch on fear of Muslims, other than persecution of Muslims and religious intolerance. Even so, those articles are more broad. I do not plan on reiterating myself, I already explained the nuances and differences between the different articles above. Moreover, I do not know what point you are trying to make by bringing up Sudan and Saudi Arabia here; this article does not defend such actions. Your argument is a red herring, and I am not going to entertain it anymore. -Rosywounds (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dating (late 1980s) wrong?

Maybe the "late 1980s" dating of the term, as we find it now in the introduction, is wrong?

Le mot “islamophobie” a une histoire, qu'il vaut mieux connaître avant de l'utiliser à la légère. Il a été utilisé en 1979, par les mollahs iraniens qui souhaitaient faire passer les femmes qui refusaient de porter le voile pour de "mauvaises musulmanes" en les accusant d'être "islamophobes".

Source: Caroline Fourest & Fiammetta Venner: Islamophobie?, in: prochoix, no.26/27, 2003[22], Google translation here: [23]

For those with a rusty French, basically, it was coined in 1979 by Iranian mullahs to paint those women who refused to wear a veil as 'bad muslims' and 'islamophobes', and this should be considered before using the term lightly.

As you may know, Khomeini was in France before returning to Iran in '79. Many of his pre-return fatwas, speeches and proclamations were issued in French and Farsi simultaneously. Azate (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources differ in asserting when the word Islamophobia, with the meaning it assumes presently, was first used. The Encyclopedia of Race and Ethnic Studies, for example, says it was first used in the early '90s by Insight magazine to describe Soviet activity in Afghanistan. ITAQALLAH 23:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sources differ. The Wiki article right now states right at the top (2nd sentence) that the word was coined in the late 80s, on the strength of "Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad, Muslims in the West: From Sojourners to Citizens, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0195148061, p.19", as the footnote makes clear. Your "Encyclopedia of Race and Ethnic Studies" says it was first used in the early '90s. I can only guess, but it appears that Haddad's date is used - and the Encyclopedia's isn't - due to the fact that Haddad dates the term earlier. This is no doubt a useful approach, consistent with the simple logic that a term cannot have been coined in the 90s, when there is evidence (Haddad's , among others') that show prior use. Now we have another source. It says the word has an even longer history (late 70s). The same logic successfully employed above thus mandates replacement of Haddad'd date with Fourest's. I'll work that into the article. Azate (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Your argument rests upon the premise (or guess, as you put it) that Haddad has actually states the figure of late '80s, and that Haddad has been favoured over EoRE. I don't see how you can say that Haddad is being cited for the figure of late '80s, it's quite clear that the sentence is not sourced to Haddad- who is in fact being used to cite the first sentence.

Secondly, when reliable sources differ, we report the difference or make the sentence more generalised instead of favouring one source over another, and we certainly don't give undue weight to one theory over others. As a sidenote, this article is about the term which was popularised by Runnymede in reference (which is notable), it cannot merely be equivocated with words possessing totally different, non-notable connotations, and the latter doesn't merit substantial lead coverage so as to poision the well or obscure the proper roots of the word as it exists today. ITAQALLAH 00:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm also not inclined to believe that "prochoix" (which appears to be a politically oriented magazine/blog) occupies a standard on par with scholarly academic sources like Haddad or EoRE. ITAQALLAH 01:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Haddad is used as the source for the claim "the term dates back to the late 80s". It's footnote #2, the second sentence. I have no beef with that source at all. However now we have a source that tracks the term "islamophobie" back to 1979. Logically, now the "the term dates back to 1979", and the source is Caroline Fourest. I'd be interested to hear why one of France's most famous journalists and authors in the field at hand does not pass you RS standard. Where's the problem, other than that the term's meaning has shifted? Happens to all kinds of terminology (e.g. liberal). You can't possibly claim that the originator of the word "islamophobie" (French for islamophobia) should be omitted from the article because it has "totally different, non-notable connotations". That's just bogus. Azate (talk) 10:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Please look at the article again. Haddad is not being used as a source for that claim, so you really need to stop making this claim.

Being the "most famous journalist" (a dubious claim to begin with) really doesn't make you an authority, not least a reliable source. The wiki article you cite isn't itself sourced, and you haven't explain in what way this "prochoix" publication meets reliability standards (i.e. academic, peer-reviewed publication for example) as opposed to being a magazine of political slant. In fact, the whole nature of her discussion is arguably polemical and non-scholarly, you won't see any outrageously fringish claims like "The word "Islamophobia" has been conceived by the Islamists to trap and divert the debate antiracism the benefit of their struggle against blasphemy." in any scholarly paper (see for yourself). The more I read this source, the more I become convinced that this is more an opinionated political piece than a work of academic repute - and that goes for the "prochoix" publication too.

You have also yet to explain why you are still pushing this one source's opinion in dismissal of other, far more reliable sources. It's one thing to generalise and say that the term dates back from the around 1980's, but it's another thing to assert one opinion as fact alongside a tirade about the "Iranian mullahs." ITAQALLAH 14:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

And if you want to use this logic of preferring one opinion and then unduly expounding upon it in the lead (under the pretext that it's the earliest), then I am sure we can use fr:Xavier Ternisien who says it was first used in 1921.[24] The theories regarding origin can be discussed more appropriately in the latter section - it should certainly not be dwelled upon in the lead. ITAQALLAH 15:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Azate the reference you're adding is not reliable. The reference may pass for a notable view (it may pass, whether it should still has to be discussed), but not a reliable source.Bless sins (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem lies in the method of portrayal of any crime commited by a muslim as being typical islamic behaviour and not an individual issue or an issue related to a certain area in the world for example in the us there are many school shootings but nobody judged the community of the shooters because they were not muslim and the president says all we can do is pray if a muslim committed a crime like that it would notbe viewed as the actions of one mental and morally sick person it would be blamed on islam as a whole another example is in america you have high numbers of children being raped but no one refers to it as an american problem or stereotypes americans as paedophiles but if only one such incident occurs in the islamic world then many newspapers in the west especially those owned by murdoch would portray the problem as a muslim problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suhaim85 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead (again)

Hi Yahel, as I explained here a while ago, I have a problem with mentioning controversy before the basic information about the term such as who coined it and when (the controversy occured after this), the perceptions associated with it in academia, or reports about it released by world governing authorities. I don't believe the controversy can or should eclipse this information, and it doesn't make sense to me from a logical perspective (about to clarify) and from a NPOV perspective (given this). I think that suggesting otherwise is against how the rest of the article has been constructed, in which we first discuss the definitions, the associated perceptions, the trends, and then the controversy. That is a logical structure (we never discuss criticism or controversy before the topic itself for stylistic and neutrality reasons), and the lead should also reflect this structure so as to neutrally represent the article as a whole. Regards, ITAQALLAH 16:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have issue with it not being in the first paragraph. You didn't want it in the first sentence, so after it is defined, it is important to mention there is controversy surrounding the term. The history of the usage should come after the controversy. Yahel Guhan 06:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Umm, no. That is not in accordance with style of articles. We almost always define things first follow them up with relevant history (which gives an indication of their notability). Finally we give space to controversy (sometimes we don't, like Antisemitism). In this case, we bend over backwards to give space to critics given the unreliability of sources (e.g. Rushdie).Bless sins (talk) 08:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Umm, no. that is not in accordance with the style of Bless sins idealism, not MoS. We are not "bending over backwards" for the critics benefit in this article. And not all the sources are unreliable. Are you really going to go down this pointless loop discussion that goes nowhere again? Yahel Guhan 08:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"that is not in accordance with the style of Bless sins idealism" That's probaly true, though I doutb such a thing exists. In any case I'd urge to stop disrupting the lead. Thank you.Bless sins (talk) 08:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Follow your own advice. I'm not disrupting it, you are with your blind reverts. The controversy needs to be given due weight. Yahel Guhan 08:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

And it has been. Why is it that we need to mention the controvesy in almost every paragraph? Is this true with antisemitism? Is this true with racism? No, because this is not how wikipedia works. The controversy is given more than due wieght.Bless sins (talk) 09:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think due weight here would be to not over-emphasise the controversy. It's secondary to more important aspects of the article such as the perceptions/trends/definitions sections, which is why the views section comes after those. The lead needs to reflect that too, else it looks like we are giving undue attention to one factor. I don't think controversy is more important or substantial than the other things mentioned about the word, given that it is now widely accepted in academia etc. It seems a bit silly discussing controversy before the Runnymede coinage or general facts about the term, when in fact the controversy occured well after that. ITAQALLAH 14:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ABC's What Would You Do?

Anyone thinks the following experiment is worth reporting? http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/WhatWouldYouDo/story?id=4339476&page=1&rss

Some people's reactions were shocking to say the least. http://www.abcnews.go.com/Primetime/WhatWouldYouDo/ Lixy (talk) 18:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent deletion by Annoynmous

I am afraid that you are mistaken here. The issue of Islamophobia is not a scholar one. It is a political issue, and the opinions of political commentators are relevant, regardless they are left-wing, right wing, Christians or democrats. We must know opinions of different people. This does not mean that we must agree with them. For example, how you can criticize an opponent if you don't know his opinion? Therefore I took a liberty to restore the text you deleted.

By the way, your user name implies a certain militant attitude. Of course it is your right to name yourself whatever you want, but people may think that you came to wikipedia to pick fights, rather to contribute to a balanced text. I hope it is not so, otherwise may Allah help you in your fights, for certainly other wikipedians will greatly dislike this. Mukadderat (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1st OIC Observatory Report on Islamophobia – May 2007-March 2008

Any idea how the 1st OIC Observatory Report on Islamophobia can be incorporated into the article? There are many places, where it could provide additional information. --Raphael1 19:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could rename the section "EUMC reports" to just "Reports" so we can cover publications from other international organizations too. ITAQALLAH 23:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I moved the addition down, where it is more appropiate. It doesn't belong in the lead. Yahel Guhan 00:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dennis Prager

Okay, so it's political, that doesn't mean you have to give every right wing crank a voice as if there some sorta authoritative voice. People like Rushdie and Johan Hariri are neutral observers and there criticism of the term gives it credence. Prager is an extreme right winger and putting him on this page is the equivalent of giving a Klansmens view on affirmative action. annoynmous 06:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way when you say this isn't a scholarly matter, well you could have fooled me. Halliday, Malik, and Ellian all come from an academic background. Hariri is a journalist who's reported from the middle east and knows about the region. I may absolutely loathe Fred Halliday, but I'm willing to consider his viewpoint on the subject because he is an academic on the middle east. Dennis Prager is a radio host in the U.S. In what way does his opinion on this matter relevant except to unfairly bias the article. annoynmous 07:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Dennis Prager is notable enough on this subject. Any old radio host or shock jock doesn't have a Wikipedia article until they are notable and any old radio host or shock jock isn't notable about Islam and specifically the word "Islamophobia" until they have published something on this subject. Prager has. So much so that he was embroiled in a nation-wide controversy which has almost Pokemon levels of copy in Wikipedia with this. Is Prager a partisan or minor view ? Not exactly. He's probably not expressing a minor view and it isn't clearly partisan as he is described from first person view how Islambophobia is used. The issue also isn't scholarly. This isn't some subject that requires any significant prior knowledge to understand. But that is actually irrelevant because in his own words, "I've written 1,000 columns, many on the Islamic world. I have been in broadcasting for 25 years. I've studied Arabic and Islam. I was a fellow in the Middle East Institute of Columbia University, where I did my graduate work....". He majored in Anthropology and History, though didn't complete his masters (that's how Wikipedia records it). By any stretch of the imagination he is more than qualified to comment. He can stay in. The next step is then RfC.Ttiotsw (talk) 07:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

So what if he's written on the Islamic world, so has every right wing neo-con hack out there. He's an extreme supporter of Israel and thinks islam is a naturally violent religion

He is not an academic on the subject and hasn't written anything significant or credible on the subject except for the usual muslims want to kill all the jews nonsense.

He is an extreme right winger who agrees the christian right on gay marriage and there general view that secualar world is evil. To say that he is a moderate voice is being extremely disengenious. annoynmous 02:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Your views on him are just your personal views. Don't let this cloud your judgement. I said being an academic wasn't relevant to this topic as it doesn't need years in an ivory tower to get an understanding of the subject. You haven't made your case very clear. Please install a spellchecker too.Ttiotsw (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

No you haven't made your case that he is notable. Who the world quotes Dennis Prager on the middle east. You have to come up with a real reason for including his comment other than you find it clever. You also I trust can come up with a better argument than insulting my spelling.annoynmous 23:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

We're not talking Middle East but the neologism of Islamophobia. I wouldn't support Prager in a Middle East article but on the issue of Islamophobia he fits. I use Firefox with spellchecker extensions. Ttiotsw (talk) 10:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of Prager

In support he has a Wikipedia article. This is a good start. He is also the subject of another article specifically related to the neologism of Islamophobia with the controversy in the 110th United States congress, here. As a moral beacon he burns his own methane mostly to illuminate his own copy. The problem I have is that it isn't clearly synthesis to stick Prager here. Ttiotsw (talk) 10:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not just a matter of his opinions. I despise Daniel Pipes, but I wouldn't object to you including him in this discussion. It's than no one who comments on matters in the middle east considers him notable. As you have admitted he is not a scholar, nor does he have any academic standing on matters relating to Islam or the middle east. He is a talk radio host. The fact that he made some inane statement on a member of congress choosing to swear on a Quaran is not sufficient reason to make him into some sorta notable figure on the subject.

The only reason his quote is included is because the person who included it finds it clever and doesn't care where it came from.annoynmous 05:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion about any of these people. Can we put the academic issue rest please ? The term doesn't need a degree to understand how it is used but we just have to record how it is used.

Prager is notable enough with respect to the concept of Islamophobia e.g. indirect reference here to what CAIR say on him - [25] which is titled "Republican Congressman Refuses to Apologize for Islamophobic Remarks, by Barbara Ferguson, Arab News" which effectively shows how the term Islamophobic gets used as a pejorative. Prager clearly expressed his view about how the term is used on CNN e.g. video here [26].

I'm quite indifferent to these two representatives of religions arguing. We have to just record the state of play. This does seem to be a dispute between us that doesn't exactly fit the need for a WP:3O but we should start WP:DR so as to avoid edit warring as this is the most I've reverted stuff to date and I don't plan to ever be blocked. I'll wait a while to see if the text still fits and be back in a week or so. Ttiotsw (talk) 10:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flying Imams

I have modified the part on flying Imams. [27] Amongst other things, saying they were removed under suspiciouns of terrorism is highly questionable and not supported by any references from what I can see. Also, I removed the allegations of their activities because it was unsourced (the source given was hardly a reliable source and seemed to be dead anyway). It seems unnecessary too since it's better just to mention that so far all investigations don't support the claim they were unfairly discriminated against. If anyone does want to add it back, it needs to be re-written and you probably should mention they deny some of the allegations for BLP reasons Nil Einne (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur with your actions. Thank you for your modification. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 09:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] It doesn't belong

A quote on Islamophobia by an eminent Israeli commentator on these things is rejected because it is deemed an 'arbitrary interpretation of an occasional quote(User:Mukadderat). It is not an occasional quote and neither is it an interpretation. It is Uri Avnery's view. That is not a reason, it is a pretext. I.e. 'We don't like it'.Nishidani (talk) 06:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Where are the real reasons for this consistent editorial hostility? I note now another user User: Yahel Guhan has eliminated the same quote without any other reason than a subjective personal take ('It doesn't belong'). Unless I find a rational justification for this kind of elision, I will put it back regularly.Nishidani (talk) 09:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nishidani. I'm not sure how reliable a source Counterpunch is. The aim is to stick to high quality reliable sources which are authoritative in this field (i.e. publications from scholarly journals, reputed publishers on Islamic studies, etc.) In the same way, we wouldn't accept content from sources like FrontPageMagazine or WorldNetDaily. ITAQALLAH 12:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the input. The general rule recently has been (this has been vetted) that Counterpunch like Front Page can be reliably cited when the person writing there is someone of high public profile or academic distinction. The question was asked by User:ChrisO over at WP:Reliable Sources about three weeks ago here, and the consensus was thus (Crotalus, Eleland, Relata Refero, etc). There is absolutely no shadow of a doubt that Avnery has his work regularly published in that outlet, therefore the objection can only be to Uri Avnery as a source for such a judgement, surely? Most of the articles I read in here are not citing from academic or quality sources, but mainline newspapers, by people far less intimately involved at high levels with the politics of the area. Regards Nishidani (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting discussion. I would personally be inclined to disagree on the basis that if the author's view was truly significant then it would have also been relayed through a more reliable avenue (i.e. a publication of his, or through a mainstream press). But it's not like this view isn't academically accepted though, because it's already expressed by academic sources in the Islamophobia#Perceptions (citations 27, 28) and Islamophobia#Trends (citation 37) sections. Which leads me to believe that we might be able to do without it anyway. What do you think? ITAQALLAH 13:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, most well-established editors there at WP:rs make the same point. It's fine as long as the person is notable, and his views apropos to the subject under discussion. To make an analogy between the inveterate antisemitism of Western societies, and the recent anti-islamicism is significant in any man's book. I won't use personal data (I know a lot of ex-fascists, who 20 years ago were strongly antisemitic, and now parade their love of Israel and hatred of Arabs, because the party line has changed in Italy. Personally I think that they are still antisemitic, and islamophobic, but that is neither here nor there). I haven't thoroughly worked the page, and looking over the record, I see you've had a strong hand in it. Therefore it seems to me that propriety would suggest I leave the matter as to how this is placed in the text to your discretion, and that of other editors in there. I've no objections to it being recontextualized. I have added Said's early (1984) remarks making a similar, if distinct, point, since I was surprised not to note it on the page (?). As far as I have checked in my copy, he didn't use the word 'Islamophobia' in his 1978 book, but a controversy occurred and he used it in his reply to critics. I think Avnery's point also important because it is a wise old Zionist, deeply involved over 6 decades with Israel and its politics, reflecting on the possible analogy between the antisemitism which drove his family from Germany, and the way, in his view, Arabs can be the object of a similar generalized ethnic phobia. He doesn't make an analogy, he makes, very succinctly, a sociological apercu on functional changes in a general paradigm of Western traditions of hostility to the other. Avnery is no odd bod. And he is not an academic. Academic literature is important, theoretical, etc. This is an authoritative figure in modern Israel endorsing from his own personal worldview a point argued about by specialists. It is no light comment by a fringe figure. RegardsUser:Itaqallah Nishidani (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It's intriguing that you bring up the point about 'ex-Antisemites' turning to more fashionable forms of prejudice, because I was just reading this article from the Guardian which discusses along the same lines.

I think the material from Said etc. is useful and I'll have a think about how it can best be incorporated. ITAQALLAH 14:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that link,User:Itaqallah. Not quite coincidental. Bertrand Russell once remarked that nations seem capable of consolidating their identity only by fabricating some bogey-man, scapegoat, as a figure of absolute contrast. In Cartesian terms, I hate 'them', therefore I am, or as Sartre would put it, the 'Jew' is what I am not, therefore in hating the Jew, I find and affirm myself. There must be quite a lot of analytical literature on this substitution by now. I'm fairly well informed on the history of antisemitism, but not on this aspect. I don't have much time, but if I come across some more material along these lines, I'll pop it in here for your consideration. Regards Nishidani (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If Avnery in Counterpunch is acceptable, I assume you won't object if I add a quote from Pipes from FrontPage, then? Equal standard for all sides, no? - Merzbow (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

As I opined above, I think that Avnery's comment isn't really necessary here given the questions raised about CP, and that we have much more reliable sources making the same point in essence. ITAQALLAH 21:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no objection Counterpunch being a source for Avnery's views, since the discussion by editors on the RS page over a month ago, I repeat, said that it is a reliable source if the author quoted from it is notable, distinguished, and cited for his own views. There was virtually unanimous consensus on this. He is in short, a reliable source for his own view, which happens to be shared by opther reliable sources. I am not one to cram wiki with extraneous material, but I fail to see the particular problem here. If one gives the same view from other Reliable Sources, it cannot hurt to add Avnery's view, since he is one of the great spokesmen for a significant minority within Israel, and not just anyone. RegardsNishidani (talk) 10:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added Pipes' views next to Avnery (which may or may not be the correct place, but that whole section is not exactly organized tightly). He is at least as reliable, and furthermore, he is already criticized in the article. If he's notable enough to report his being labeled an "Islamophobe", he's notable enough to report what exactly he's saying that leads him to be labeled as such. - Merzbow (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The material by Pipes is self-published. Please find material by him published by third-parties. WP:SELFPUB requires that self-published material not be "contentious" or "involve claims about third parties". And Pipes and Avnery don't seem reliable. They are only notable, and this why they're quoted.Bless sins (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, forgive an old-timer's grumblings but I find this increasingly bewildering. As distinct from his father's books, wonderful, I have never read anything by Pipes that strikes me as intelligent. But he is very widely quoted and an influential controversialist. I don't see why he can't go in. But the larger context here is thatI find all this hard to understand, extremely hard to understand. In the ‘Views’ section, Polly Toynbee (British journalist), Afshin Ellian (Dutch law professor), Johan Harari (a young Brit journalist), Roger Kimball, the New Criterion neocon litterateur , Piers Benn (British philosopher), Kenan Malik a Brit-Indian neurobiologist, Fred Halliday are all cited or referred to in the lead section. There is absolutely no way that you can retain all of those references, and exclude Avnery. Polly Toynbee, Johan Harari, whose writings I am familiar with, are journos, who haven't lived 70 years of their lives in the thick of Israeli politics, publishing, journalism, investigative reporting, or had extensive high-level contacts with the leading figures of the Arab world. The same goes for Malik and Benn. None are specialist scholars writing on the subject at hand. I admire Fred Halliday's writings, having read two of his books, and were you asked Fred Halliday if Uri Avnery were a reliable source, he'd laugh at you for your naivity. Roger Kimball is quite a good literary and art critic, but on politics is just a neocon polemicist, with no knowledge of the Middle East to boast of Afshin Ellian I've never heard of, but he is a law professor. The lead also has Stephen (Suleiman) Schwartz, a neoconservative muslim. He is a Muslim convert, an American, and has nothing of the knowledge Avnery has. Avnery has written several highly respected books, thousands of articles, all written as an intimate insider, member of the Knesset, informal negotiator at the highest level with the PLO on behalf of the Insraeli government, and even its secret service. Challenge who you like, but if Avnery goes most of that section goes, merely in terms of consistency in the application of a principle. Nishidani (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I really don't have any problem with Avnery, from his article he does seem somewhat notable. I wouldn't want to use him as a source for historical or theological analysis, of course, but neither would Pipes be appropriate for that; but for opinions on a modern political-sociological term like Islamophobia, it's fine. - Merzbow (talk) 02:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Bless Sins, look more closely. The original article by Pipes was published in the New York Sun, a major newspaper. The link is to a copy of the same article on his website. - Merzbow (talk) 02:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If published by NY Sun then it isn't selfpub. But whenever I click on the link it leads me to Pipes' own blog, which means you have to change the url. Can you please post the NY Sun link, and use this in the article?Bless sins (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Pipes is simply reprinting his own article, which is perfectly legal and acceptable to link to, given that it was previously published in a reliable source. The article no longer appears to be on the Sun's website. - Merzbow (talk) 05:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT mandates that we specify the intermediate source from which we obtain the information, in this case a self-publication. Please don't ask me to trust Daniel Pipes' word. Perhaps you could check the archives of the NY Sun? If Pipes' blog is the only thing we have, then I'm afraid this will have to be classified as WP:SELFPUB.Bless sins (talk) 12:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh give me a break. I remember reading the original when it WAS on their website. If you think he's lying about his own published words, I'm afraid the onus is on you to go prove this. - Merzbow (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I never said that he is lying. Only that he is not trustworthy. No, the onus is one the editor that adds or restores the material. I'm willing to believe that such an editorial actually existed. That is why I'll let the information stay for the next little while. During this time I expect that you'll find the link, else I'll have to conclude that link provided is the only one that exists.Bless sins (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

A paper newspaper (or book or article) is a reliable source; there is no onus on editors to provide a web link. But to humor you, go to newslibrary.com, search on Islamphobia and select NYSun, you will see this article listed with a 2005-10-25 date, and an excerpt that matches what's on Pipes' website. Your absolute lack of faith combined with the unwillingness to do even a basic amount of research to back up your unwarranted accusations is wearing thin. - Merzbow (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

While I do agree with you that the text appeared in that newspaper, but a mention of issue/volume and page number would have made it more clear. I think it would be good for all of us to take a short break and get a cup of coffee. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If that is a published text, then the addition of the issue/volume number, page number etc would work. --Be happy!! (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Merzbow I think you're right. I would however note from some experience that the argument Bless sins has used is one I am familiar with - in that several edits I have made have been overruled by administrative sticklers, and I've had to forego the text in deference. Can't find the diffs, too old and lazy. I hope you take my word for it. In support of Merzbow's position, that Daniel Pipes's stuff is on his own webpage or blog may make it self-published is true, but then so is much of what we cite from Norman Finkelstein's webpage (and dozens of other cases). Most experienced editors on either side of the divide accept this as reasonable when the blogger is an academic, or controversialist of note. If we know our stuff, it's sensible not to wave too many rules, or rather waive them in mutual trust. The only objection to Pipes, is to object to Avnery. Nishidani (talk) 21:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Public discourse section

I've been thinking that this section needs to be summarised in prose and/or be forked elsewhere. A list of every or any event declared Islamophobic really isn't really encyclopedic IMO. Thoughts? ITAQALLAH 12:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Other than a few notable or high profile examples of Islamophobia, it seems unnecessary to include a list for a general article. One or two examples may be good to keep around, since they may help someone understand what types of behaviors or statements could be considered Islamophobic. I don't think a forked article listing a bunch of events/acts would be that helpful, although Timeline of antisemitism seems like a parallel to that type of article. Based on looking that article over, I think that the "timeline of antisemitism" article and any hypothetical Islam-related equivalent article would suffer from WP:SYN and would have practically no sourced claims (because people would apply the terminology retrospectively), among other issues. I think a good, forkable section would be the "Efforts" section. The "labelings" seem rather trivial in most cases. Labelings could be included on the respective pages of those that have been labeled (assuming that those individuals have criticism sections, like Robert Spencer).-Timour Derevenko (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I do think that such a section would generally by beneficial (it'll make this article less cluttered). Also, the new article could be modeled on Timeline of antisemitism (as suggested above). If users try to violate WP:SYN, then we'll have to deal with them.Bless sins (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the point of a fork is to keep only notable "labellings" here, while forking out the not-so-notable-but notable-enough-to-be-in-wikipedia ones. It'll help this article a lot, I believe.Bless sins (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of racism

There is often discussion of racism when Islamophobia is mentioned, and there is discussion of Islamophobia (sometimes) when racism is mentioned. The two are related concepts, although it is hard for me to say (without sources) if they they cause each other.

Evidence of the above can be found all over the article. For example (emphasis added):

• Islamophobia is monitored by "European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia".
• 2007 article in Journal of Sociology, Islamophobia is defined as anti-Muslim racism and a continuation of anti-Asian and anti-Arab racism.
• This sentiment, according to Malcolm Brown and Robert Miles, significantly interacts with racism, although Islamophobia itself is not racism.
• The publication "Social Work and Minorities: European Perspectives" describes Islamophobia as the new form of racism in Europe, arguing that "Islamophobia is as much a form of racism as Anti-Semitism, a term more commonly encountered in Europe as a sibling of Racism, Xenophobia and Intolerance."
• 50,000 people signed a petition urging French President Jacques Chirac to "consider Islamophobia as a new form of racism...

The sources for all of the above are in the article itself.

Once again, I'm not saying that Islamophobia is racism. I'm saying the discussion of Islamophobia is related to the discussion of racism.Bless sins (talk) 03:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Almost any form of discrimination can be considered a form of racism, however unless it is specific to race, the racism cat doesn't belong. No other religious prejudice is in the racism category after all. Yahel Guhan 03:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Mere 'relation' is not a reason to add a category. From WP:CAT: "Generally, the relationship between an article and its categories should be definable as "(Article) is (category)"". Islamophobia is not racism, so the category does not apply. - Merzbow (talk) 06:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid its not that clear cut, and what you are quoting is not policy. What Merzbow quotes is one of eleven "general guidelines," the last of which states: "Bend the rules above when it makes sense, especially when it is the best solution that can be found under the circumstances." Notably the first of these guidelines also states: "Categories are mainly used to browse through similar articles. Make decisions about the structure of categories and subcategories that make it easy for users to browse through similar articles." Also, the most basic guideline offered before all this, in the "When to use categories" section, states the following:

• "The categories to be included, which serve as classifications, should be the significant (useful) topics to which the subject of the article most closely belongs to as a member, and where readers are most likely to look if they can't remember the name of the thing they are trying to look up."

In other words these guidelines are in place to facilitate the use of categories as practical navigational aids. Categories do not define entries in a systematic way, and there is nothing in WP:CAT that should make anyone think so. They are navigational aids used for practical purposes. Also, I should add, that Islamophobia, in practice, can be a form of racism, even by your definition of racism. This is not dissimilar from antisemitism, which is not always prejudice in relation to some concept of race, though the racialist aspects of antisemitism are simply more obvious and clearcut, not to mention historically and sociologically verifiable. Anyway, I don't find the arguments against the category compelling, though I think more substantiation of the usefulness of the category as a navigational tool needs to be presented here as well.PelleSmith (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

At the top of WP:CAT, we see "This page in a nutshell: * Categories help users navigate through Wikipedia via multiple taxonomies * Categories are for defining characteristics, and should be specific, neutral, inclusive and follow certain conventions." I take that to mean both are general requirements to be met. As you've said, it's hard to see a racism category as much of a nav aid here. And the category certainly fails the "neutral" standard, since it is a point of dispute among reliable sources whether Islamophobia can be termed such. - Merzbow (talk) 23:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"since it is a point of dispute among reliable sources whether Islamophobia can be termed such" That is exactly why we include it. Current academic discussion on racism has a large focus on Islamophobia, not that Islamophobia is necessarily a form of racism.

Like PelleSmith pointed out, antisemitism can be a form of racism, or it can simply be religious discrimination, which is not racism. Thus, the point to be considered is not whether all Islamophobia is racially motivated, but if atleast some is. I think there is sufficient evidence for that.Bless sins (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No, re-read WP:CAT again - "Categories are for defining characteristics, and should be specific, neutral..." It is not neutral to add the category because there is significant disagreement among reliable sources; in fact it seems to be a minority view. - Merzbow (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't get it, do you? Please read my comments properly. I'll repeat: the addition of an article in a category does not imply that the article is that category. Thus the presence of Anti-Defamation League in "Category:Antisemitism" does not imply that the League is in anyway antisemitic. It just means the notability of the League has to do with antisemitism.

Similarly, the notability of Islamophobia is partially due to the question of whether Islamophobia is racism or not? Do you understand?Bless sins (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

We understand perfectly well. We aren't stupid. Every form of discrimination is in some way "connected" to racism. However, every form of discrimination is not racism. Only articles which specificly refer to a prejudice against a race (and Islam is not a race) belong in Category:Racism. Yahel Guhan 23:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Bless, unfortunately the actual guidelines at WP:CAT are in conflict with your opinions. The guideline says that the subject should be "is" the category, and that the category should define characteristics of the subject, and in a neutral manner (I've quoted all these above). Racism is a characteristic of Islamaphobia only according to some reliable sources, not others. So listing it as such is not neutral. - Merzbow (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Distinction

Someone may wish to annotate Martin Amis's distinction, in his recent book on 9/11, between Islamismophobia, and Islamophobia.Nishidani (talk) 06:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Labelings"

"Labelings" is an awkward term that I've rarely heard elsewhere on wikipedia. A more neutral solution was to replace it by "perceived Islamophobia". Do users in general agree with this?Bless sins (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Also the term can be confusing since it can refer to Labeling theory, which is not what we're trying to say here.Bless sins (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

They are called labelings because every inclusion is disputed. For that reason, it is neutral to say "labelings." "Perceived" is unacceptable, because it is bias and implies their views are islamophobic, and that it is not disputed, when it is. If you have a better term which would at least imply there is doubt as to whether or not they are islamophobic, you are welcome to suggest one. Yahel Guhan 23:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing in the term "labeling" that would say the entry is disputed. We could put is as "views considered Islamophobic" or simply "views".Bless sins (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing awakward with the term labelings. Labeling means to classified. It seems proper to me. The people in the category were labeled (or classified) by someone else as holding islamophobic views. All of them denounce the classification (or labeling). "Views considered islamophobic" is not acceptable, because, they are not "considered." That "consideration" is a labeling, and is disputed. Yahel Guhan 22:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"Considered" means, ofcourse, by the people who allege it. "Labeling means to classified." Can you find a source that says that? Labeling, in sociology, a subject connected to this article, can refer to Labeling theory, which is misleading. As such, I'll implement your "classification" for now as temporary compromise.Bless sins (talk) 03:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Also remember that we can "label" both acts and views. Thus we need to be specific what exactly is the subject of the section.Bless sins (talk) 03:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

How about "acts/views" "called" Islamophobic? I think "classified" has an official connotation that is not appropriate here, because the labelings are disputed. Or "alleged to be", perhaps. - Merzbow (talk) 05:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

"Classified" is not my idea, but brought up by Yahel (thus I assume that he will be completely ok and not revert me). "Allegedly" implies that it is simply an allegation with little or no weight. It is also not used in this context very often (you never hear of "allegations of antisemitism", but you would hear "...is considered to be antisemitism").

"Called" is neutral, but implies that the actions are Islamophobic by definition. To "call" something is to give it a name which is not what their doing. Of the above terms, however, "called" would be the most favorable, however. Let's see what other (creative) ideas others come up with.Bless sins (talk) 05:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stockholm

"Steps were taken toward official acceptance of the term in January 2001 at the "Stockholm International Forum on Combating Intolerance", where Islamophobia was recognized as a form of intolerance alongside Xenophobia and Antisemitism.^[13]" - This material is far from NPOV. "Official acceptance" by who? Recognized by who? There is no "official acceptance" and "recognition" in a vacuum, it's always some organization or another, and for controversial material, we need to give names. - Merzbow (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you find that this argument has been refuted by a reliable source? Or are you simply criticizing it for lack of specification?Bless sins (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The source says: "The next step in the development towards an official acceptance of the concept and phenomenon of 'Islamophobia' occured in January 2001, when expressions of Islamophobia were officially accepted as signs of intolerance, in line with racism, anti-Semitism, and xenophobia, by the Stockholm International Forum on Combating Intolerance."

If we think that names are needed, we could provide the list of the attending NGOs and government representatives. We could also list the UN and the EU, the latter produces periodic reports about Islamophobia and Antisemitism. We could also list the mainstream media organisations which accept the word and use it definitively. We could also make mention of the majority of academia which accepts the term and concept, or the other sources verifying widespread acceptance. Or - and I think this is more prudent - we can simply say official acceptance, which is precisely what the source says. And I wouldn't say that description was inaccurate either. ITAQALLAH 21:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added "NGOs and government representatives", there is no reason not to say who took the steps and who did the recognizing at this particular conference. - Merzbow (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not what the Brill source says. I said NGOs and gov reps as examples - you'd also have to include the EU, UN, OSCE, and the listed observers and experts (Or, in the website's own words: "Representatives from 51 countries attended the conference. Among many others, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson and OSCE Secretary General Ján Kubis were present. The participants also included representatives from the European Union, the Council of Europe and a number of NGOs, scholars, journalists and professionals from around the world.").

If you want specific attendees at the conference mentioned, that's cool... but I'm not sure what fault you find with the source that you feel official recognition/acceptance shouldn't be mentioned. ITAQALLAH 22:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Then the alternative is to say "XXX says in YYY that...", but I don't see the author of the Brill source listed. - Merzbow (talk) 00:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I found info for the author (a professor), and added that to the text, attributing the original phrasing. - Merzbow (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Islamophobia, too broad a term for the definition - Muslimophobia fits better

I think that as Islam refers to the religion of Islam and only indirectly to the fidels of this religion, the Muslims, the term Islamophobia shouldn't be retained but rather Muslimophobia.

Keeping the term Islamophobia would mean that criticism of this (made exceptional by the fact) religion would equate to racism and even crime against humanity. As a comparison, someone promoting pork meals in schools or criticizing circumcision couldn't be accused of anti-semitism (attack against semitic people), but very easily of Islamophobia by professing the same opinions.

Branding someone Islamophobic might end up into serious harm to freedom of speech (forbidding any criticizing of Islam - including to people of the said religion), while Muslimophobia clearly would point to attack against people of Islamic faith - and should be opposed.

Muslimophobia describes much better any attack against people of Muslim religion. Islamophobia should be reserved to anti-Islamic feeling that could be as much legitimate as anti-catholic or anti-hinduist feeling as long as they do not translate into prejudice against people of these religions. Lagoonfish (talk) 01:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia describes how the word is used, it is not our job to create new words. // Liftarn (talk)

First of all do I agree with Liftarn, secondly depending on the _quality_ of your critique there's a big chance that your "critique" on peoples' religion indeed equals to a "critique" on the people themselves. And yes, "promoting" pork meals in schools can indeed be perceived anti-semitic.--Raphael1 23:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FrontPage

Please not that frontpage magazine is not a reliable source. Anyone who disagrees should explain him/herself below, as I'm confident that most wikipedians would agree with me.

On the contrary, you have to prove that FrontPage Magazine, which has a wikipedia article, is bad source. Mukadderat (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If Schwartz has written a piece on Islamophobia we should be able to source it from alternate (and more reliable) sources. I encourage you to find such sourcesBless sins (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Please check out this site. The website itself doesn't appear too reliable. However, it claims that Schwartz was published in Pakistan Observer (mainstream newspaper). Perhaps users can investigate this further and try to find the Observer article.Bless sins (talk) 00:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

User Bless Sins deletes definition of Stephen Schwartz (journalist) which are no worse that those who Runimede. B.Sins asserts that the citation is bad because FrontPage Magazine is an unreliable source. I have no idea about quality of FrontPage, but I do see that S.Schwartz has books on Islam politics. According to the policy, this fact makes publications of Schwartz reliable sources even if they are printed on the toilet paper. Mukadderat (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick question: how do we know that FPM is correctly reporting Shwartz? How do we know that the FPM is not making this up? If we had a reliable publisher then this question wouldn't arise.Bless sins (talk) 01:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

They are not "reporting" Schwartz. They are printing his article. Now, are you aware of any scandals involving FrontPage distorting authored articles? If yes, in will be a valuable addition to its wikipeedia article. If not, we can quote Schwartz from there. "Innocent until guilty", you know. Mukadderat (talk) 01:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

FPM has been considered "guilty" (that is of not being reliable) on many occasions. I'm sure the result will be the same this time. If you want Schwartz to stay (I think he makes a good addition) please find a reliable source. Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 01:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, colleague, you have to present something more solid that your word. Frankly I don't care about what Schwartz says. What I am opposing is that the idea that a whole magazine is declared unreliable source by a single wikipedian. There is a special procedure in wikipedia for establishing this, please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Mukadderat (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed you should see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Take a look at this in particular.Bless sins (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing at it. However I don't see as a conclusive one. While the source may publish materials that distort truth, I don't see any evidence that this source distorts or forges authors' words. The magazine is a media not a source. The source is the author. In our case we are quoting author's definition, i.e., authors' opinion, and it does not matter where the author expressed it.

In summary,

1. the text is attributed to Schwartz, not to FrontPage;
2. the text in question is an opinion of Schwartz, not a statement of fact which would have required a peer review typical of a reliable source (and the sole reason why we insist on RS).
3. While FrontPageMag is known as "far right" and hence biased, this is not the same as yellow press. It simply means that it gives preference to authors with far right worldview and we must be careful when citing them for facts and their interpretations. But there is nothing wrong in citing these same authors for their views because there is no reason to believe that the media in question distorts or forges an authored publication (while e.g., some other author may distort or misquote Schwart's words, in our case we are discussing Shwartz's own words printed in an article he authored).

Therefore in this case the citation is admissible, although a better source may be recommended. Mukadderat (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. After reading Schartz bio more carefully, I see he is described as "neoconservative". Therefore his publication in FrontPageMag is normal, and other his publications may be expected in conservative media as well. I seriously doubt that wikipedia has rights to completely censure notable media even with polarized worldview, with the exception of recognized wackos. Mukadderat (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

A discussion has been started here.Bless sins (talk) 07:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)