Talk:Islamophobia/Archive 9

Phobia?

Due to the description given in the article, why is it called "Islamophobia"? It is not a true phobia in the sense that a phobia would be the fear of something, which in this case could be a genuine phobia given the recent circumstance regarding terrorism. It leaves no "label", so to speak, for people that are in genuine fear of muslim people. Ray harris1989 22:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

From the reading I've done and the pursuit of information relative to this word I'd say that it originally did refer to a -phobia but over time it evolved into meaning something else. The reality is that this word is still very much evolving and this article is essentially a "snap-shot" of what the word roughly means now. (→Netscott) 22:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Although the strict definition of "phobia" is an irrational fear, its meaning has evovled to include any sort of dislike or avoidance, without necessarily an actual fear. In scientific discussions, "phobic" defines a characteristic of a substance. For example, "hydrophobic" describes the property of a substance that cannot belnd or mix with water (i.e petroleum).Scott S 14:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Efforts combatting Islamophobia section

Despite the fact that I have edited on this section I'm wondering if it doesn't really fit into the article? The article is about the terminology and concept of Islamophobia and as such it strikes me as too presumptive for the article to in fact be using such a neologistic term (outside of quotes where the term has been used by others). Rather than editing out this section for these reasons what are others' views about retitling the section something to the effect of: "Examples of usage of the term islamophobia"? Netscott 10:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Err, no, that would be odd. The examples are examples of Goverments and orgaanisations fighting, or combating what they have described as islamophobia, and that is te reason for its inclusion. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Following the example set by the Islamofascism article I've change the section title to be, Examples of use in public discourse. Netscott 12:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Examples of its use in public discourse would include almost the entire article!!! - That section deals specifically with "Efforts to combat(or fight) Islamophobia" --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. If you look at the Homophobia article, for example, there is not anything that talks about efforts to combat it. However, there is the article LGBT social movements which documents efforts at improving civil rights for the LGBT community. There is also Homosexuality laws of the world & Category:Gay rights by country which describes the treatment of the community in different country. Of course, these are not documenting efforts to combat the neologism 'Homophobia', rather they focus on the more verifiable information on actual laws. Perhaps a better approach in this case would be to focus on the civil rights of Muslims around the world. As far as I can tell no such article exists as of yet. In the current situation, claiming that when the Prime minister of the Netherlands states one thing in a speech somewhere, and concluding that he is dedicated to "combatting islamophobia" seems like a bit of a stretch to me. jaco♫plane 14:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Explain how "Examples of use in public discourse" does not apply to every single cited reference in this article~? Also, if some additions to that section are debatable, explain why please? --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you not read User:Jacoplane's comment above? Also as far as the specificity of combatting the wording just under the section title covers this. Netscott 15:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, now, answer the question, Explain how "Examples of use in public discourse" does not apply to every single cited reference in this article~?--Irishpunktom\^talk 15:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

What may be needed is a dab and two articles... one that discusses the terminology of "islamophobia" and another that discusses the concept that stems from the term. From having edited on this article for awhile now this strikes me as one of its recurring points of contention. Netscott 15:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that having two articles is a good idea. Firstly, because normally an article (or group of them) should use single definition and be good basis for discussion across WP. In my opinion existing Examples of use in public discourse section is a way too detailed. In characterization sub-section opinion of questionable importance are being discussed. We possibly cannot and shall not include each and every article mentioning issue. Secondly, because of a disputed nature of the article. We don't have to multiply entities w/o need. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 16:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Jacoplane that material on civil rights of Muslims would be worthwhile, though probably not in this article. Nysin 18:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• As far as the section title's application to every reference, this is a good point that you make and in fact I'm inclined to have this section title encompass the References to section as well. Netscott 15:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• What about the earlier cited references. And are not the Critics of the term an "Example of use in public discourse"? --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

When it comes to criticism or support of the term islamophobia we're talking about Meta discussions. The term isn't actually being used but is being discussed. Do you see the difference? Netscott 15:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course its being discussed!! The very concept is discussed in those sections! --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you actually visit the meta article? Netscott 15:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and you are still wrong. How can a section which disputes the application of a word not be discussing the word?!--Irishpunktom\^talk 15:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry let me be a bit more precise. Please see Meta- and know that what I'm talking about in terms of the criticism/support discussions surrounding islamophobia is indeed meta-islamophobia discussions. Netscott 15:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Interesting that you should mention WP:POINT in one of your editorial comments when you're the one who's making a rather asinine edit that does a blanket encompassing of everything being public discourse despite my explanation of the difference in the section title relative to the concept of meta-. By making this new all encompassing section title it is you yourself who's demonstrating WP:POINT behavior. Netscott 15:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• The heading refers to its use in Pblic discourse, this is a sideshow and irelevent, as all the cited references relate to its use in Public discourse--Irishpunktom\^talk 15:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The more I think about this proposed edit, the more I like it. Specifically because of the neologistic nature of this term, a section towards efforts to combat it strikes me as strange and presumptive. With a neologism, it is useful to demonstrate exactly how the term can be used. There's another consideration here for me, which may be somewhat beyond the scope of this article, but in general, I think if other neologisms have a "Examples of use in public discourse" section, then so should this. Wikipedia, in its push towards 1.0, is going to need some conformity in this regard, a general template for certain types of articles. The Islamofacism article seems to be a decent model for this to me. Bibigon 17:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• One can think about the meta distinction here as that between "X discusses Y" and "X discusses (X' discussing Y)". Yes, "X' discussing Y" ultimately relates to Y, and as such so does "X discusses (X' discussing Y)" but that sort of recursive conceptual resolution brings up reductios best avoided insofar as Y here (Islamophobia) isn't a primitive concept itself. X and X' are people practising public discourse.
• For example, the idea of Islam underlies that of Islamophobia and that of monotheism underlies that of Islam. Is everything in this article about monotheism? Well, yes, to some degree, but that obscures a useful distinction. Given that the goal should be to communicate, that would prove counterproductive. Instead, the article should separate meta-discussion, such as criticism, from discussion, such as government ministers pronouncing Islamophobia something to oppose. Nysin 18:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Nysin i could not disagree more, islamophobia is a word/concept that is currently being defined in the world. The critisms are a part of this process not a seperate discusion. Also this is not a dictionary entry that just defines the word, it is an encyclopedia that has to show the examples of and effects of the concept in the real world. This means i think both the critisisms of islamophobia and the things people/groups are doing to combat islamophobia have a place in the artical as it is at the moment.Hypnosadist 18:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Islamophobia is a word/concept currently in the process of being defined, and criticisms are part of that. I therefore agree that criticisms of Islamophobia belong in this article. However, that doesn't erase the difference I discuss in the entry you respond to, and thus they belong in a separate section of the article, under a separate heading. Nysin 19:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The term is being used since 15 years and has a very clear definition. Criticism of Islamophobia is IMHO superfluous since every term describing a racism is derogatory by definition.Raphael1 16:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

What's the (or an) Islamic race? Nysin 17:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

What's the jewish race? Raphael1 17:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but then I'm not making claims which require me to know. Nysin 18:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no jewish race, but anti-Semitism is still a form of religious racism. Raphael1 18:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Support that using reliable sources. Nysin 18:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Jewish ethnic divisionsRaphael1 19:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, so Jews don't constitute a race. How about that "anti-Semitism is still a form of religious racism"? Nysin 19:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you honestly doubt, that anti-Semitism is a form of racism? Raphael1 20:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Missed this whilst responding to Bibigon. Whether I honestly doubt antisemitism is a form of racism isn't relevant to the validity of objections raised, but yes, I do. Because I doubt that Jews constitute a race, I doubt that one can coherently refer to racial discrimination against such a group. Nysin 05:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You might want to read Social interpretations of race resp. the American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race". Raphael1 20:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I read both of those. Interesting, but I'm not sure what specifically you had in mind? Nysin 21:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

By interpreting the term "race" socially (as "population" resp. "ethnicity") anti-Semitism as well as Islamophobia can be seen as racisms. Raphael1 22:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

A couple of points:

• The AAA statement refers only to race in scare-quotes, as something of dubious objective reality. Whilst I don't intend to take a position on whether there exists more substantiation to the notion of race here, I'll note just that the statement leaves open without too much prejudice (compare race with and without scare quotes) the possibility of such (which would support my position) and apparently views the race it describes as pernicious at best.
• The section of Social interpretations of race on "Race as a social construct and populationism" doesn't mention religious groupings, nor does the rest of the article.

Shocking, another ostensibly cited but in fact poorly supported statement by you. (Yes, AGF and all, but this gets tiresome.) Nysin 09:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Nysin, I don't grant the premise that Jews don't constitute a race. The U.S. Supreme Court has even ruled on this issue, and found that they do. Now the SCOTUS isn't a definitive authority, but I think they can be said to be a POV worth considering here. There are issues with that definition, but there are similarly issues with definining them otherwise. From the perspective of this debate, the questions are "Is someone who's Jewish connection is purely genetic subject to anti-semitism?" and "Is someone who's Islamic connection is purely genetic subject to islamophobia?" I'm not an expert in either subject, but a quick perousal of the topics and incidents reported lead me to believe the answers are in the affirmative and negative respectively. There is a legitimate difference between the nature of anti-semitism and islamophobia in this respect. Bibigon 19:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a strong position on this at the moment either way, but [1] suggests that SCOTUS's descision was awfully circularly argued. To some degree natural language tends to operate like that, insofar as word usage can define word meaning, but the combination of the weak-looking argument (I'll look up the case itself as well, but later) and the fairly strong reply that "Common ancestry is not required to be a Jew" and yet "Race is a genetic distinction, and refers to people with shared ancestry" causes me to view SCOTUS's argument with skepticism, a notable POV though it may be. Nysin 19:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This is why I suggested that there are issues with the definition of Jews as a race, namely, that one can become a Jew. However, cases of conversion are relatively rare, and the vast majority of cases of anti-semitism I would postulate have not been directed at converts, at least not at recent converts. On the other hand, a sizable amount of anti-semitism is directly at people who are Jewish only by blood, and live secular lives, without any claims of faith. Nazi Germany for instance operated in this respect on the basis of genetics, not on the basis of faith. Those who had one genetically Jewish grandparent were labled as being sufficiently Jewish for their purposes. This, along with other similar cases, suggests strongly to me that it is a race. Bibigon 20:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest, that you reconsider the reliablility of your sources. Refering to Nazi Germany as a source for information is dubious to say the least. Raphael1 20:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate on this point? Why exactly is Nazi Germany a dubious source on this issue? Bibigon 20:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but explaining that to you is just below my threshold level. Raphael1 21:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to forgive me if such an answer doesn't satisfy my curiosity. This leads me to suspect that you don't really have a good reason for doubting the reliability of this source. Bibigon 21:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but there is no genetic connection to Judaism. For example Palestinian Muslims are members of the Semitic ethnicity too, but they are not targeted by anti-Semitism. Raphael1 20:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

All this does is suggest that anti-semitism isn't targetted at semitic people. The vast majority(Ashkenazi) of Jews aren't a semitic people is what the research I've read suggests. Pointing out that other semitic people aren't subject to anti-semitism doesn't mean that Judaism isn't a race, just that it's a not a semitic race. Bibigon 20:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you discuss your theory with the editors of the Judaism article. They clearly state, that Judaism is a religion not a race. Raphael1 20:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

1. No they don't. I don't know why you think you can make verifiably false statements and not be called out on it, but whatever. The only mention of race in that article is in connection to reform judaism. Nowhere else do they even bring up the race/religion debate.

2. Even if other Wikipedia articles did go so far as to say that it's not a race, I'm not wild about the idea of Wikipedia referencing itself as a source. But that's really a secondary issue here, given that you haven't shown yet that other Wiki articles have taken a stand on this question. If they fail to mention the debate, then that's a weakness of the articles, given that they would be failing to represent the POV of SCOTUS, among many others. It remains of limited relevance here however. Bibigon 20:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Raphael1, you couldn't be more wrong about the term Islamophobia having a clear definition. Don't you recall this discussion about how the term wasn't even found in numerous well respected dictionary references? Netscott 19:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Anti-semitism is the belief that Jewish people "have the right" to feel offended by other's beliefs in the New Testament and more specificly in Jesus...White people "hating" blacks is no different than blacks "hating" Jews...is nonsence, and it should be filed down as Ignorance; and that is, the rejection of acceptance of a contradictory logistical value...

For the most, in the United States, white people see black people at night and they get scarred, could that be called blackophobia?...theres no such thing as islamophobia, what you are trying to explain is why people like to dislike other people...

I don't think you could add Islamophobia under clinical use of the 'phobia', so then you can't call the ignorance or hatred of Islam people "phobia"("In other words, unlike clinical phobias, which are usually qualified with disabling fear, class discrimination usually have roots in social relations") because the hatred and ignorance is 'real'("Whereas a fear of (say) a large predatory animal or of a hurricane, as a rational fear, does not classify as a phobia, because such encounters carry a possibility of harm or death.")...some people do 'feel' strongly about 'threat' possed by Muslims(whether fundamentalist or not, just ask the president of the free world)...and this is mainly going by wiki's own attempt at giving a 'defenition' to some of these terms...

Wiki is cool, but defining a defenition of another concept is, well, not cool.("Creating these terms is somewhat of a word game.")

Usage of the actual Islamophobia term in this article

For NPOV reasons this article needs to actually not use the term when discussing its use by others... this is another part of the reason that I've initiated the "Examples of use in public discourse" section. The section title "Efforts against Islamophobia" falls afoul of this principal concerning neutrality. Netscott 20:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The article should of course use the term itself, just as the articles on anti-Semitism and racism use the terms they describe. Wikipedia:Verifiability does not mean, that every article needs to put all it's content in a section called "Examples of use in public discourse". It is enough to cite sources so the statements become verifiable. Raphael1 20:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Raphael1, you're failing to understand the difference between an established term like anti-Semitism and a neologism like islamophobia, this is one of the reasons necessitating not actually using the term islamophobia in the article about it. Netscott 21:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• What about the neologisms Genocide, Cyberspace, Westernization or War on Terrorism? All of those articles are using the term and none has a section called "Examples of use in public discourse". Raphael1 23:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

None of those articles identifies the terms of being neologisms I believe. They are all significantly better defined and understood than islamophobia. Bibigon 00:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Nonetheless all of those terms are neologisms. Do you think, that our readers will understand the term better, if it has a section called "Examples of use in public discourse"? Raphael1 10:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The following Wikipedia guidelines in effect support not actually using the "islamophobia" term when editing on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Let us please take these guidelines to heart and follow them accordingly. Netscott 08:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Your sincerity to only follow the guidelines would be much more plausible, if you'd have filed an AfD on War on Terrorism as well. Raphael1 09:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Opening definition

I've just come across this article for the first time, and was very surprised by the opening line. Having flicked briefly through the long discussion on this page it seems that there are two things that are dealt with in this article: a) irrational hatred of Muslims and Islam b) the etymology and use of the term 'Islamophobia' Both (a) and (b) should be covered by wikipedia. It seems obvious to me that (a) should be dealt with under the article Islamophobia, and (b) should be dealth with in either a section of this article, or an article of its own, entitled something like 'The term Islamophobia'. I will therefore rewrite the opening sentence to make it clear that the subject of this article is (a). Nomist 16:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia Cat

There are equivalent cats for Category:anti-Semitism and Category:anti-Catholicism. Islamophobia is a similar concept. I'm today making a few other similar categories for future use -- I have done this before with great success. I don't want to get in an ideological war. Islamophobia is an appropriate subject for a category whether you agree with the concept or not. The newly created category is here Category:Islamophobia. --Ben Houston 03:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Category for Deletion: Islamophobia

Please note that User:Netscott has put the Category:Islamophobia up for deletion for the same reasons he originally put up this article for deletion (which resulting in a 30 to 5 vote for keep.) The CfD page can be found here Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_20#Category:Islamophobia if anyone is interested in voicing an opinion. --Ben Houston 17:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because Islamophobia is becoming more widespread and more recognisable to some people does not mean it is something new, it has existed for a long time like Francophobia has , though I can not see Netscott nominating Francophobia for deletion ,hmmm I wonder why?

The following comment on Wikipedia would be a example of Islamophobia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islam_by_country&diff=55120739&oldid=51233121

--Taz Manchester

intro section

Why do we mention the reports from HRW and CAIR that allege that there has been an "increase in hate crimes against Muslims and Islamic organizations", in the intro section? None of our sources that we refer to even mention the term "islamophobia". -- Karl Meier 22:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

They mention hate crimes against Muslims, which is islamophobic per definition. Raphael1 22:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a very big claim Raphael. Who says that all "hate crimes" against Muslims are per definition "islamophobic"? -- Karl Meier 22:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Raphael is right. Islamophobia is a prejudice or hatred against Muslims. Anti-Muslim hate crimes result from prejudice or hatred against Muslims. Faz90 22:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

So you reject the possiblity that anyone that commit a "hate crime" against a Muslim could have other motives than what you call "islamophobia"? -- Karl Meier 22:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I in good faith reverted Karl's removal of this info but I too see why there should be reservations about having the info in the article as it stands. Wouldn't it be more pertinent to include examples of these organizations' actual utilization of the term "islamophobia" in the intro in terms of prejudice and hatred against followers of Islam? Netscott 22:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Protection

I have protected this article to prevent edit warring. Feel free to post on WP:RFPP to request unprotection; admins may unprotect this without further reference to me. Stifle (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks pretty much like a two-hander between Karl Meier and Irishpunktom to me. Can't we just warn them to stop playing silly buggers? --Tony Sidaway 16:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Netscott and raphael1 are involved too. There is going to be Mediation. --Irishpunktom\^talk 17:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediation seems appropriate at this time. Netscott 17:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

If there's going to be mediation, then provided the parties agree to stop editing the article during mediation we can remove protection. --Tony Sidaway 17:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree despite my wrong version concerns. :-) Netscott 17:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

I have filed a request for mediation on this article. Interested editors please be aware and for those who may be interested in joining in the mediation please add yourselves. Thanks. Netscott 17:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Renaming proposal

I suffest the name Anti-Muslim sentiment, for several reasons:

• More neutral
• more encompassing in terms of the range of attitudes
• the therm is common: "anti-Muslim" vs "anti-Islamic" is 5:1 in google
• more correct: the target are people (Muslims), not religion. The distinction of "muslim" vs. "islam" is notable eg. in questions how to say correctly: "islamic scholar" or "Muslim scholar" and in many other cases.

`'mikka (t) 23:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

We have a naming convention, Islamophobia is a far more widespread and acepted term than "Anti-Muslim sentiment"--Irishpunktom\^talk 00:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It is widespread, but what's its usage? We have Persecution of Muslims and Historical persecution by Muslims articles. Is it Islamophobia? BTW "anti-Muslim" word is just as widespread as Islamophobia, and if you remove wikipedia and mirrors, it is even more widespread. Not to say that you did not answer my arguments. And forgetting than majority rule is not the only naming convention. `'mikka (t) 00:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

After re-reading the article, I am withdrawing my suggestion. Indeed, the article is about Islamophobia. On the other hand, I see the need of the wider topic, Anti-Muslim sentiment, which is barely scratched in the Islamophobia, which is 80% about the word, i.e., in a way an overblown dicdef. `'mikka (t) 00:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This suggestion has appeared a couple of days ago in its complementary form, in that jacoplane stated a potential use of an article about Muslim civil rights around the world. For example, given something like the UN's ideal set of human rights, anti-muslim sentiment might then be the degree to which by active measures they're denied those rights due to their religion. Nysin 03:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I vote to keep the name Islamophobia as it is about the arguments over the meaning of the word as well as the actuality of the concept in the real world. If Anti-Muslim sentiment is wanted by wikipedians then it should be created, it can allways be deleated if it not up to standard or not really wanted after all.Hypnosadist 22:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Request

Category:Pejorative political terms should be added. --tickle me 13:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about that myself but while the term "islamophobia" is definitely frequenlty used in a pejorative sense it is also used non-pejoratively. In this sense "islamophobia" doesn't really compare to say for example islamofascism or islamikaze whose usages are almost exclusively in a pejorative sense. Netscott 13:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Implying that the target of a political or moral qualification is ill, as the suffix phobia compels, is inherently pejorative. E.g. "anti-Semite" denotes a political or moral statement or indictement. "Semitophobe" would also put in doubt the addressees sanity. For this, there's no clinical evidence. Besides, I don't know of examples of non pejorative usage. --tickle me 14:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

While I understand the logic you're explaining, try reading the actual islamophobia article if you haven't already and you'll find it's been used non-pejoratively. Netscott 14:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thx, I did. I don't doubt that is possible to use the term on neutral grounds, but that applies to any word. An etymological or sociological study of any four letter word will refer to its object sine ira et studio - and Kofi Annan is not supposed to be rude ever. However, any tenacious proponent of the concept is likely to avoid the aspect of pejoration, while actually aiming at the opponent's delegitimization by association: phobia -> illness. That's an inherent property of any pejorative political term: go for the man, not his opinion. --tickle me 17:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Whilst I suspect I agree with your overall premise, at least one article cited contains someone reluctantly allowing their own views to be labeled as Islamophobic:

Asked about those who say that Jews should not vote for a party that espouses xenophobia, Dewinter replied: “Xenophobia is not the word I would use. If it absolutely must be a ‘phobia,’ let it be ‘Islamophobia.’

I'm not sure if it makes sense to call one's own statements about oneself or own's own beliefs prejorative. This does, however, appear to be an unusual exception, and a reluctant one at that. Nysin 22:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"Dewinter": there are many more. However, tongue-in-cheek ghetto kids calling themselves "Nigger" or "bitch" don't make these words not being pejorative both semantically and etymologically, lest we go back to Roman or middle English times, which I propose not to do. Moreover, we could deconstruct any slur by regress to examples of irony and sarcasm of the adressees. --tickle me 01:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia is deffinately used perjoritively, but it also can be merely discriptive unlike "nigger". The use as an insult stems from the fact that most people think discrimination is a negative thing, so that being called one (ie an islamophobe) is an insult. There is the feel as well that the negative nature of this term is then used to alter the political process by denying legitamate demorcratic debate about islam, that really is the deffinition of perjoritive.Hypnosadist 16:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Introduction?

The introduction to this article is a painful mess. Why is it still protected when there hasn't been any discussion of the content of the article on this page for at least a fortnight? — JEREMY 17:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I am requesting unprotection at this time. There has been no substantive progress made on the talk page. Unprotection should be tried and then re-added if there are users causing trouble. Calwatch 06:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Could we then do away with this term, and work on Anti-Muslim sentiment rather? There were more reasons given to follow this route than to continue finding defenitions to 'islamophobia' instead of actually explain what it is, even in a practical use of the term itself...Anti-Muslim sentiment should be the term use to at least give a voice to those who believe Muslims are being discriminated against based on their beliefs/traditions/custom/perceived violence roots...and thus, making the 'phobia' mute and ignorance perpetual.

The unsigned user misses one of the main points that the use of this term as a propaganda tool is an important part of this artical as it is about the use of this word in public and political discourse. If you want to start an artical that is called Anti-Muslim sentiment and is about "at least give a voice to those who believe Muslims are being discriminated against based on their beliefs/traditions/custom/perceived violence roots" then do so.Hypnosadist 10:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Understood your concern...but have you seen the words they expect middle school kids to spell?...this could easily become just another word at the spelling bee 'competition'...we can't quite give more ammunition to those who wants to cloud the HUMAN language, let alone the english language...propaganda does not help anyone...and thus, our dissatisfaction with terms like this, in order to 'uncloud' our mentality even more from words with empty meanings (Orwell)...

And I know the book...and I know the page...

This article absolutely needs to stay. Previously I had concerns about this article defining the term and thought that it should be deleted on those grounds but the days of this article actually defining the word are over now. There is no doubt that the concept and history of the term "Islamophobia" warrant an article about it. Netscott 19:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The only article that would be relevant about this term is a medical report on the subjects...anything less and its a ready-ad...

Forest gate

Rapheal1 i think socialist worker is not usually a reputable source neigther are small media collectives that don't name the reporter. Only the MAB quote is of possible relivence. You don't need the two other quotes to say any time the security services screw-up its ISLAMOPHOBIA!!!!!!!Hypnosadist 22:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, WP:Reliable_sources's canonical examples of unreliable sources come rather close:

Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident. However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or the British Socialist Workers Party. Groups like these may be used as primary sources only i.e. as sources about themselves, and even then with caution and sparingly. Extremist groups should not be used as secondary sources.

Nysin 06:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the Socialist Workers reference. Raphael1 11:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article really needs a clean up - from simple grammar to ridiculously short sentences editors if you please? Danlibbo 00:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Whilst I agree a cleanup would benefit this article, I don't see why simple grammar, per se, proves deleterious to it. Further, as [2] suggests the core text (excluding long lists of URLs, for example) contains an average of 22 words/sentence, I don't see the basis of your claim of ridiculously short sentences except for the possibility I've neither verified nor refuted that a suboptimally wide statistical deviation from that mean exists. Could you please clarify? Nysin 06:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Could the following statement be removed: The Dutch parliament has voted in favour of a proposal to ban the burqa in public, which has led to similar accusations. [17]

The Dutch parliament has NEVER voted on the Burqa or a proposed ban, so this is simply not true. It was discussed in the media by a few politicians and the Minister for Immigration is studying if it is legally possible to ban the burqa, but that's about it. Dee, 19 June 2006 17:33

OK so the link to the BBC says those exact words and then later on in the artical goes on to explain that this is not a vote enacting the law, but rather a vote to say we want this law drafting. As i understand what is happening at the moment is that the cabinette of the dutch government were given the job of crafting this law. They are at the moment consulting with there internal legal team to see if this is legal under EU human rights law. This makes the short quote missleading at best. If a dutch wikipedian could get us some more detail on the situation constitutionally as what the state of play really is at the moment, that would be really good.Hypnosadist 23:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

YA NOR violation

Raphael, please stop citing references in which no claim of "Islamophobia" is actually made. Nysin 05:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed that reference, though I don't perceive WP:OR as an order to stop thinking. Even the US Marine Corps agrees with the Council on American-Islamic Relations, who consider that video clearly inappropriate. Nysin, what do you think motivated this marine to write and sing that song? Raphael1 11:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not an order to stop thinking, and I've never stated such. I'm not going to speculate at the moment as to what motivated this marine to write and sing that song, but unless a reliable source states it to be Islamophobia, it's not WP's business to do so in their stead. Nysin 22:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Gitmo ref

Is the Gitmo reference with the questionable citation looking to change anytime soon? Nysin 04:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

.nl efforts against Islamophobia section

Said section violates NPOV regardless ("... an islamophobic book ..."), but could also stand for someone capable to ensure, as has not always been the case, that it's not OR. In particular, even the paragraph added states it was cited for "inciting hatred", not "Islamophobia", exactly. This issue becomes more subtle when accounting for translation, though. Nysin 10:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think "islamophobic book" is not POV given this book was banned for "inciting racial hatred" it could be argued that thats a conviction for "islamophobia" or near as, under Dutch law. Also i think the name of the auther should be mentioned, Pakistani cabaret artist Zoka F. published under the pseudonym "Mohammed Rasoel".

Heres a link to an english translation of this book that might be usful, it could be placed in the references of the artical. It does have a warning at the top of the page indicating that this book has been banned as inciting race hatered so no-one should stumble opon it unaware of what it is. http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/heroes/downfall.htm Hypnosadist 12:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV says:

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

The section, as currently written, asserts that the book is Islamophobic, and thus violates NPOV. Nysin 12:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

OK how about re-writing saying just that this book was banned for race hatred which some people beleave this is an example of what later would be called islamophobia?Hypnosadist 12:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR#What_is_excluded.3F says:

However, original research is more than just no personal crank theories. It also excludes editors' personal views, political opinions, their personal analysis or interpretation of published material, as well as any unpublished synthesis of published material, where such a synthesis appears to advance a position or opinion an editor may hold, or to support an argument or definition s/he may be trying to propose. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article . See this example for more details.

Wherein the potential NOR violation arises. It's unclear so far the linked source approaches calling it Islamophobia (which is dubiously race hatred or anything else, as other portions of this talk page attest, to begin with) to avoid its being a synthesis. In particular, if this book was labeled as inciting racial hatred before the term Islamophobia effectively existed, that seems almost unavoidable. Nysin 13:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

OK what about keeping the sentance as it is but removing the word islamaphobic and adding the link i provided so people could read it for themselves and make up there own mind?Hypnosadist 14:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

At which point, what claim is the article making to justify its inclusion? Your link is interesting, but unless a reliable source actually connects it to Islamophobia, including it in the article looks like synthesis. Nysin 18:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The claim is that this has been found in a reputable court of law to be incitful of the hatred of muslims, that is not OR its just reportage.Hypnosadist 18:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

However, to them call being "inciteful of the hatred of Muslims" unambiguous Islamophobia requires, at minimum, having more confidence in one's definition of Islamophobia than this article appears to suggest is warranted. Thus, it's a synthesis, for example, of the ODE and the verdict of the Dutch court. Nysin 19:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[3] and [4] label the book as anti-islamic. Possibly the better word to use? A link to the english translation would be a good addition for interested readers. --Zero g 19:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you agree to anti-islamic Nysin?Hypnosadist 19:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Zero g, I experience timeouts in attempting to access [5], but I do see that your first link labels it anti-Islamic explicitly. As such, I wouldn't have a problem with regards to OR with Wikipedia stating such, and wouldn't with NPOV so long as it didn't actually assert its being anti-Islamic, but used some variant of the template "X says Y is anti-Islamic". However, that gets back to the question I had before of relevance. If, whilst following NOR and NPOV, one can't actually tie this to "Islamophobia", what place has it in an Islamophobia article?

There's a case for having an article about anti-Muslim sentiment, for example, but this article, as that talk page section points out, isn't really it. Nysin 19:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Given that you agree with Zero g why don't you rewrite accordingly and then we can see what we think. It should be cool.Hypnosadist 20:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

anti-Muslim sentiment redirects to Islamophobia so I asume Islamaphobia can be seen as a generic term that doesn't have to be explicitly stated as such in order to be viable for this article. For your convenience, it is labeled as 'islamofobie' in the following source: http://www.discourses.org/De%20Rasoel-Komrij%20Affaire.pdf --Zero g 21:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll agree to relevance, NOR, and (if phrased differently) NPOV. Further, I agree that Hypnosadist's link belongs in the article alongside it. Nysin 21:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Queen Noor

Would anyone please care to explain, why the statement of Queen Noor is supposed to be in the section, which lists (alleged) examples of Islamophobia? IMHO Queen Noor clearly is not islamophobic at all, instead she makes an effort against Islamophobia. Raphael1 00:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm editing to clarify this as we speak. It appears that there are some general references that are in the "efforts against" section that don't mention any specific plan of attack in terms of countering "islamophobia". Netscott 00:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Karl Meier and I are doing the work that's been needing to be done in terms of properly attributing the utilization of the term to those parties doing so. Maybe you could help? Netscott 00:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Raphael1, I've divided up the references section into three sections to better distinguish the information about the various types of references in response to your inquiry here. What do you think? Netscott 13:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I disapprove that separation into "views" and "acts", because it's almost impossible to do. How can you say, that an islamophobic journalist writing a book is merely having a "view" and what about the BNP using widespread Islamophobia in their election campaign? Nobody who merely has an islamophobic view will ever be listed here, because we'd never find out unless he "acts" based on his views. Raphael1 21:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Changed a lil

I changed the opening line; to show that there are differences of opinion regarding the definitions we highlight two examples. I have removed three Block quotes, there are many names mention with thei opinions, there is no obvious reason why these three people deserved such lengthy quotes. I have moved a report detailing the alleged existence of the concept away the efforts against, because its not, its a report into it. Efforts against it may come from it, but it, by itself, is not. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Irishpunktom since you were the editor who created the "efforts against Islamophobia" section please explain your definition of what is supposed to be there. Based upon the content that is there the definition you're going by is less than clear. There are a number of quotes of people towards such ends (like Queen Noor below) but don't specifically mention a particular "effort" against "islamophobia" (say like the OIC's effort). Netscott 15:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what it is you are asking for? Queen Noor isn't in there any more, and the OIC has set up an observatory on Islamophobia so as to "tackle the issue of Islamophobia everywhere." The setting up of an Observatory is an effort.--Irishpunktom\^talk 16:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm saying that the OIC as well as the kingdom of Jordan's call, and the British government setting up of initiatives but your quote of former prime minister Jan Peter Balkenende isn't an effort nor is Ken Livingstone's quote and not the cite of The Downfall of the Netherlands either. What is the definition you're going by to include such one time quotes, etc? Netscott 16:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The Downfall of the Netherlands is notable due to how rare it was to have a book banned in Holland, also that much of what he wrote in the book has come to pass and more with the killing of Theo van Gogh (film director).Hypnosadist 21:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Piers Benn

I haven't checked who denuded the Benn paragraph, but it's not even really critical anymore. The point of it is not tolerance per se, a message quite commonplace in the rest of this Islamophobia article, but instead "But these virtues are a far cry from the sentimental pretence that all claims to religious truth are somehow ‘equal’, or that critical scrutiny of Islam (or any belief system) is ignorant, prejudiced, or ‘phobic’. By all means let us be well-informed about Islam, but let us not assume that once we are, we shall altogether like what we find.". Ignoring the last sentence denies the purpose of its inclusion to begin with. Nysin 16:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Quoting "Islamophobia"

I'm not happy having to do this... as I think doing so is a bit distracting but the need for a neutral point of view regarding the term is very evident when there's such a prominent "critcism" section of the concept and the term. Additionally much like User:Karl Meier I've begun including citation details regarding individual references and I encourage fellow editors to continue in this regard particularly for neutrality reasons. Netscott 16:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: In accord with this discussion I have in good faith removed quote marks from section titles until such time as the question of utilization of the actual term in the article is established through Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. (→) 16:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The quoting is just one sign of obvious bias in the article. Another sign is the first sentence: "Islamophobia is a neologism with no agreed definition." As if any other term - even a relative old one like "anti-Semitism" - has an agreed definition found in every dictionary. Raphael1 21:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Raphael1 ever one to be quick to assume good faith. Let's see who put the "no agreed definition" part in.... Hmm, Irishpunktom, a muslim. Raphael1.... please assume good faith. Thanks. (→ Netscott ←) 21:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Irishpunktom probably wouldn't have put that sentence in, if you wouldn't have replaced our consented definition with that IMHO poor Oxford definition. Raphael1 01:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Raphael1 I'm going to be breaking WP:NPA and WP:CIV in saying this but, you're an idiot who wastes people's time with your lack of mastery of the application of logic and your continued false accusations and tendentious disruptive editing and proxy behavior. Don't forget you've previously falsely called me a liar and never apologized. One can assume good faith for so long but with your repeated demonstrations there is no other word to best describe you but idiot and I mean that in the fullest sense... do read the idiot article. Karl Meier is the one who made that change. User:Azate didn't say it directly but his words essentially mean that you are also incompetent outside of your specialty which apparently is computer related (and even there I'd have my doubts). (→) 02:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You did that change as well. Raphael1 19:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Nothing like implicitly verifying my previous statements Raphael1, well done. Please note in that diff that it involved the "Use in public discourse" section that was the primary subject of our pre-page protection content dispute. (→Netscott) 19:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, you've been warned about making personal attacks, and you yourself have given warnings againt it. I'm surprised at you. Also, the use of scare quotes is excessive, they should be removed. --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Irishpunktom, since you've not refuted anything I've said in my above commentary are you expressing an implicit agreement with it? Your own commentary in Raphael1's RfAr seems slightly indicative when you yourself said, "Raphael asked me to come here, and so I have." as though you weren't really inclined to otherwise. As far as quoting the word "islamophobia", there are ways of writing this article that are in accord with a neutral point of view that would negate the need for the quotes but despite my efforts to move in that direction my edits keep getting reverted. Let's be honest it is not at all neutral for the article about the concept and term to be using it when there is such a significant section regarding criticism of both, is it? (→) 14:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, this is somewhat irrelevent to the matter at hand, but I added that because it was true. Its not that I was really inclined to otherwise, its that I was unaware till I was informed, and thats why my additions were late in the process. Calling people idiots is not nice man, its incivil and should be avoided. Also, scare quotes should be avoided, there are plenty of disputed terms in Wikipedia, New anti-Semitism, Islamofascism, Loony left, none of which use scare quotes the way this does. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It is relevant when User:Raphael1 demonstrates that he's not assuming good faith in my editing here and repeatedly makes false accusations in that regard. Irishpunktom the lead sentence in the Application section of Islamofascism reads thusly, 'Some writers have used "Islamofascism" to refer strictly to Islamic movements'. Why are you utilizing that term for comparison then? (→) 15:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Even Loony left reads thusly, 'The columnist for The Guardian and The Independent, Peter Jenkins, recorded policies which were dubbed "loony left" by the media ... ' and comparison to new anti-Semitism is a false analogy as anti-Semitism is a well established term fully in the English lexicon with "new" attached to the front of it to distinguish it from the "old" anti-semitism. (→) 15:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

New anti-semitism is not a well established term, it is seen by many as a way of attacking people who are critical of Israel. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right it's not a "term", it is a phrase whose comparison in this regard to the term islamophobia is a false analogy. Please respond to my other points. (→) 15:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what makes you think its not a term? And, exactly, why is it a false analogy? --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Comment: Due to previous interactions between myself and User:Kafziel he recused himself from this discussion as a provider of a third opinion. Correspondingly he reverted this issue back as a request on WP:3O. As the original requestor for WP:3O involvement I have since removed my (restablished) original WP:3O request and intend to file a request for comment surrounding the issue here. (→) 15:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm here from Third Opinion.

To get right to it, I see no problem with using the term "Islamophobia" within the article itself. This is an encyclopedia article, not a dictionary definition. It's perfectly normal to use the word being discussed, even if it is controversial. For comparison, the homophobia article uses that term no fewer than 30 times (not counting section headings). As controversial as the word nigger is, the article is still permitted to use the term in its discussion. This case is no different.

I also agree that the scare quotes used in the article are inappropriate. Quotation marks should be used to denote quotes or titles, never to imply skepticism or disagreement. Kafziel 14:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Kafziel, thank you for coming and giving your third opinion. Unfortunately comparing the word islamophobia to homophobia and nigger is a false analogy. The reason this is true is that the word Islamophobia is not well established in the English lexicon like homophobia or nigger. Please see the survey below. I'm thinking this question is going to need to be presented in an RfC.

Cambridge:

• homophobia
• islamophobia

Merriam Webster OnLine:

• homophobia
• islamophobia

MSN Encarta:

• homophobia
• islamophobia

You requested a third opinion. I gave it. This is what mediation is for. If you won't accept it, you shouldn't have posted a request there. From the introduction to WP:3O: "The third-opinion process requires good faith on all sides. If you think that either editor involved in a dispute will not listen to a third opinion with good faith, do not request a third opinion."

If your only argument against using it is that it's a neologism, then you can forget it. If it could be shown to be a neologism, the article itself could be deleted. Consensus has twice held that it is not. With that nearly unanimous consensus in mind, I disregarded that aspect of your argument and found no other differences between this topic and the examples I listed. Kafziel 15:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

My argument is that there is a very prominent critcism section regarding the concept but more particularly the term itself. Niether of those other articles has such a section. Look at this section, notice anything funny there? (→) 15:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

As well WP:3O is not the last stop in the dispute resolution process. (→) 15:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It can be the last stop, if both parties are willing to listen. No part of the dispute resolution process should just be blown off because it's "not the last stop". If you look at it that way, then the last stop is being banned. You requested the third opinion, and now you choose to ignore it? Something tells me that if I had agreed with your position, you would have used that decision to settle your disagreement.

And no, I don't see anything funny about the section you linked to. It uses the term homophobia. Kafziel 15:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

In your previous commentary you mentioned "If you think that either editor involved in a dispute will not listen to a third opinion with good faith ... " have I demonstrated that I'm not listening to a third opinion in good faith? The section title is, '"Homophobia" as applied to political figures'. Despite its established nature the word homophobia is in quotes. (→) 15:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Kafziel, I hate to be wikilaywerly but given our previous interactions I'm surprised you didn't recuse yourself from joining this discussion based upon the WP:3O policy:

"Third opinions should be perceived as neutral. Do not offer a third opinion if you've had past dealings with the article or editors involved in the dispute. Make sure to write your opinion in a civil and nonjudgmental way." (→) 15:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, until you just said that, I didn't know we had ever spoken before. I didn't recognize the name, and no offense but I deal with a lot of people on Wikipedia. For the record, my opinion was written in a very civil and nonjudgemental way. You just didn't like it.

I take it that means you want someone else to offer a Third Opinion? Okay, I'll reinstate your request at 3O. Perhaps you can find someone who agrees with you next time (at which point, as I said, I'm sure you'll suddenly consider 3O to be the final word). Good luck. Kafziel 15:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not reinstate the request... this issue looks as though it'll require an RfC. Thanks for taking the time to review this question of utilization or not. Cheers. (→) 15:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Roger Hardy

I still don't see why Roger Hardys definition should be notable enough to be mentioned. Has anyone used it, refered to it, or repeated it anywhere? What makes it important? -- Karl Meier 23:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a definition by the BBCs Islamic Affairs analyst. The BBC's Islamic Affairs analyst is notable enough to warrant inclusion. --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right that he is notable, but doesn't in itself make his definition notable and worth mentioning in this article. My question was: Why is his definition notable? What makes it important enough to be mentioned? Has anyone used it, refered to it or repeated it anywhere? -- Karl Meier 17:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

As the BBC is such a significant world class level media outlet; on the surface of this question, I'm inclined to agree with Irishpunktom. (→Netscott) 17:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is supposed to be concise, and we are only to include the most important definitions in it. The question is not if Roger Hardy or the BBC is notable or at a world class level. What matters is quite simply if the definitino is important enough to be mentined. My question is: Why is the definition that is mentioned as a short sideremark in an article about another subject important enough to be mentioned? -- Karl Meier 17:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well the fact that the definition of this term is in a rather nebulous state it makes sense to be citing how folks are defining it, particularly folks who are in key positions to influence how the term is coming to be understood. Roger Hardy is in such a position. (→Netscott) 18:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It is of course true that Roger Hardy is indeed in a position where he can influence how the term is used, but that doesn't mean that he has actually done it. I am of course not against the idea that we should mention how different people and organizations has defined the term, but I believe it is a reasonable requirement for inclusion that we are somehow able to demonstrate that their definition is notable, has made an impact and has been mentioned somewhere. In cases such as this with Roger Hardy I believe it is even more important because of the fact that ,his "definition" of the term is only a short side remark in an article regarding another topic. The "Characterizations" section is already quite heavily populated, and if we are going to mention every short remark regarding what the definition of Islamophbia might be, from everyone that might be notable, then it's going to be a very long section for our readers to go through. -- Karl Meier 20:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Were people really wearing Qur'ans in French schools?

Not carrying them around, but sporting them as accessories of some kind? Haven't seen that here in N. America. Cites, please. Passage in question is about wearing religious symbols. BYT 15:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know but i've heard of Cristians carrying minature bibles as lockets or broaches (particularly Catholics in europe) so may have picked up the concept there, know of no Muslim in britain that does that though. Also i have seen Arabic travel Korans of the 17th-19th century that are small and protected in decorated silver and leather cases that could easily be made into a necklace.Hypnosadist 15:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Me too, but I've never seen anyone wear such a thing. Hang it from a taxicab's rear view mirror, maybe, but not as a necklace. Am I missing something here, or is this a hypothetical case designed to make it look like the French law "authorizes" a form of expression in which no one is engaging or is likely to engage? BYT 15:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No idea as to the motivations of the french government other than the fact they saw the young muslim women stating wear the hijab as a support for radical islam and hence terrorism. This IMO was silly to say the least as i know of no acts of terror carried out with lengths of cloth as the weapon, but thats what happens when you get into the murcky depths of thought crimes (like islamophobia before someone commits a crime!).Hypnosadist 16:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Unless there is a citation pointing to someone actually wearing a Qur'an in a French school, this element should be deleted. BYT 16:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Folks the law wasn't specifically about "wearing" anything but about religous displays. Going around with a Qu'ran in your hand is definitely a religious display and the law allows for that. (→Netscott) 16:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

1) Does anyone else -- someone in France, say, who is charged with upholding this law -- consider carrying a Qur'an to be religious display? Again, do we have a citation of some kind?

2) Who came up with this idea that carrying the Qur'an constitutes a religious display? Was it us, the editors of Wikipedia, or was it someone in France? If it's the latter, do we have a citation of some kind?

3) Just to clarify: Do you consider the Chief Justice of the United States to be making a religious display when he holds out the Bible for the President to use to take the oath of office? BYT 16:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Netscott is right the law does not mention specific things that are banned just ostentaous religious symbols. This is really a law to ban prmoting religion in secular french schools, not by the schools(who are already covered by many laws) but by pupils on other pupils. The very subjective nature of this law is one of the many complaints against it.PS to answer 3) yes i do very much!Hypnosadist 16:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Quickly to answer 3, absolutely and that is 180 degrees out of accord with separation of church and state just like when the U.S. Government decided to make "In God We Trust" a national motto in 1956. (→Netscott) 16:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Answer to 1) is teachers first then headmasters using usual school punishments, if the person keeps offending the school has to take the child to court as i understand this law.

2)No ideaHypnosadist 16:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I still would like to know the following from Netscott:

1) Does anyone else -- someone in France, say, who is charged with upholding this law -- consider carrying a Qur'an to be religious display? Again, do we have a citation of some kind?

2) Who came up with this idea that carrying the Qur'an constitutes a religious display? Was it us, the editors of Wikipedia, or was it someone in France? If it's the latter, do we have a citation of some kind? BYT 16:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

A BBC news citation[6] is mentioned in the article, in the sentence that discusses the matter. The other external link in the same sentence uses Fatima's hand as an example of allowed small symbol (I'm half guessing, I don't speak French). Mystically, over time the article repeatedly tends to lose all mention of any Islamic symbols and only cite Christian and Jewish symbols as allowed. A lot of unfortunate bias creep here... Weregerbil 18:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Great. That's what I was looking for. Many thanks. Perhaps this article should be referenced specifically in the portion where we talk about Qur'ans being considered on a par with stars of David, etc.? (Or is it already there -- did I space out and miss that?) Should we specify that we're talking about miniature Qur'ans, as referenced in the cite you just provided? And presumably carried, not worn? BYT 18:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we phrase it so that we don't invent things outside the sources? If size needs to be mentioned how about "pocket-sized Qur'an" as in the source, not "miniature", "microscopic", "so tiny the reader can't possibly read it and thus the law is discriminatory", ... And not specify on what body part or hidden crevice of clothing the object must reside in, just remove "wearing of" and "display of", like in the source. Conspicuous symbols are disallowed, small ones allowed. Weregerbil 18:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

"Islamophobia is a neologism with no agreed definition. For example, the 2003 edition of the New Oxford Dictionary of English refers to Islamophobia as "hatred or fear of Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force" while Princeton University's "Word Net" defines Islamophobia as "prejudice against Muslims"[1]."

This introduction is ridiculous. Prejudice, hatred and fear are not mutually exclusive and represent different aspects of the same bigotry. By this logic, homophobia has no agreed definition either, as you can find similar differing definitions of homophobia in diffferent dictionaries. Deuterium 11:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop pushing you prefered definition of the term. If you read the article you will discover that there are several definitions of this new term, and that the definition and concept itself is disputed. Mentioning some from notable dictionaries in the intro section is entirely reasonable, and provide the readers with useful information regrading the term. -- Karl Meier 12:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Another thing is that you are disrupting a highly controversial article, where other editors - after a lot of work and many discussions and revert-wars - has finally made some progress and created a reasonably stable version of the article.

No, the definition of Islamophobia is quite simple and clear and comparable to homophobia or xenophobia. Even though there is debate about the exact meaning of the word, that does not mean that it has "no agreed definition" whatsoever. That's a silly and biased way to start the article, and it wouldn't pass muster on, say, the homophobia article. There's debate about the meaning of most terms, but that does not mean there "is no agreed definition" for them. Deuterium 12:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

For example here are two different definitions of homophobia from different sources at dictionary.com

"Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men."

"Prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality"

I suppose you'd conclude that there was no agreed definition of homophobia? Deuterium 12:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you here to make useful unbiased edits to the Islamophobia article or just to make some WP:Point regarding "Homophobia"? -- Karl Meier 12:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If you have some problem with the homophobia article, then go edit that instead of disrupting the work here. -- Karl Meier 12:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to understand the logic that goes from A. two slightly different dictionary definitions to B. there is no agreed definition of the term.

Because it makes no sense to me. "Prejudice", "hate" and "fear" are overlapping terms with lots of shared meaning. Deuterium

This article is absolutely not to be defining the term "islamophobia" to do so is original research. If a defintion is going to be set up in the intro then it had better well be well sourced and cited. (→Netscott) 08:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

What? Of course it is to be defining Islamophobia. That's what it's about. It should define the basic accepted meaning of the term (and there is one) and THEN describe different interpretations, not the other way around. Deuterium 10:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but that is very wrong. Please know that, "Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary or idiom guide". Please cite definitions when adding them. (→Netscott) 10:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding Deuterium - obviously an article has to specify what it is about, and that includes defining (to some extent) whatever term it is about. Not necessarily prescribing a definition (as per a dictionary), but at least indicating roughly what the term the article is about means. certainly the intro as is, is extremely clumsy --Coroebus 10:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, this article is not to be defining this term. The intro could use some work agreed, but fellow editors absolutely need to be citing any particular definition(s) they are including in the intro... as according to my own source research and the source research of Mulsim editor User:Irishpunktom there is currently no agreed defintion of this word. (→Netscott) 10:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm with Deuterium on this one, your claims of 'no agreed definition' seem like OR to me, particularly given as those two definitions are extremely similar. And as I said, you don't need to define it prescriptively, just say that it is used to refer to prejudice or fear of Islam or Muslims, if you want to quibble about details later then we can do so in the body. You don't see articles on other terms, like homophobia or anti-Semitism, which have much better introductions which spell out what we all broadly mean by the term before getting tied up in knots about having a precise definition, paradoxically, it seems to be you that wants to define (in the prescriptive sense) the term in the intro, whereas I'd simply like a description of what people mean by it. --Coroebus 10:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Would you kindly do a survey of dictionaries relative to the word "islamophobia" and "homophobia" and then come back to talk about what you found? Thanks. (→Netscott) 10:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Can't find it in many places, but where I have found it, it has a definition that reflects the (bloody obvious) one I listed above (it is Islam and phobia, so that is what you'd expect), and homophobia has a similar definition. I'm failing to see your point here, particularly since the term is a neologism and thus defined by usage, and usage is guided by the blatant meaning of any term where you add '-phobia' to the end of something else (OED:"Forming nouns with the sense ‘fear of-’, ‘aversion to-’) not the first dictionary company to rush it into their latest edition. The onus is on you to establish that Islamophobia doesn't mean what everyone else takes it to mean (as per above), otherwise I'll alter the intro to put it in there. And if you want to include the 'no agreed definition' claim then you'll need some evidence for that which goes beyond two dictionary listings not being word for word identical. That there is a debate abaout usage of the term is very different to whether there is a debate about what the term means. --Coroebus 11:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That is the whole issue. When you're talking about "islamophobia" just being a construction of Islam and -phobia you are demonstrating merely one definition of the term (what you call 'blatant'). When I first started editing on this article I told myself the same thing but after doing proper research I came to understand that there are many definitions of the term. If we were to follow your logic then it would not be blatantly obvious that some are defining "islamophobia" as a "recognised form of racism". To the both of you, please do proper research and cite your sources! (→Netscott) 11:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You really aren't helping here, I just can't see what these alternative definitions are, you certainly haven't provided them, it's all getting a bit Humpty Dumpty, that some people have called it a "recognised form of racism" hasn't got anything to do with it, you are arguing about wider questions, these people still use the term to refer to prejudice against or fear of Islam or Muslims. You've assured us of all these contradictory definitions, and different meaning of the term, but you haven't pointed us in the direction of any actual evidence for this. You try this sort of argument over on SlimVirgin's New anti-Semitism article (where there really is an ambiguity in definition) and see how far that gets you --Coroebus 11:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You aren't helping here. You're just demonstrating your lack of proper research on this topic. Forgive me if I'm mistaken but you seem to be a new editor here when you're talking about User:Slimvirgin's (as though she owned it) article on New anti-Semitism. No one "owns" Wikipedia articles/pages. All that needs to be done is for sources to be cited for given definitions and there'll be less edit conflicts. (→Netscott) 11:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I've been here long enough to know that SlimVirgin certainly does 'own' it (but that's irrelevant). (Since it has come to my attention that someone is telling tales out of school, I suppose I should clarify what I meant here for fear of offending another editor. My reference to New anti-Semitism was to a previous argument we'd had over the exact definition of the term, and where I felt the burden of proof had fallen very much the other way to the current article. My subsequent reference to SlimVirgin 'owning' the article were not relevant, but I might as well clarify that I am well aware that no one 'owns' articles in a quasi-legal or even administrative sense, but that people can be the creators of articles, be very active editors on those articles and their talk pages, and be protective of those pages and versions given the work they have put into them, i.e. the usual wikipedia sense of 'owning' an article) Look, I've been through the first few dozen links in the article, they all define the term roughly the same way (and entirely analogously with homophobia, which was Deuterium's point) - where is this disagreement that my research is supposed to bring up? All this talk of needing cites for definitions is meaningless if there is no disagreement, currently all we have is your assertion that there are disagreements (backed up by nada), and a diff you post from another editor who seems to claim that there are disagreements based on trivial differences in wording (again, as pointed out by Deuterium). So put up or shut up as they say, point me to the dissenting definitions. --Coroebus 11:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm probably going to be requesting article protection shortly as I can tell by your negative attitude that this is not going to be resolved. Even in your own example of New anti-Semitism the article has no less than 5 citations in the very first line. (→Netscott) 11:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You're going to pre-emptively try to protect an article rather than respond to my request for evidence for your position?! Incidentally, I'm not objecting to inclusion of references for the definition, only the current explicit 'this dictionary defines it as ....' intro, and the belief that there is a controversy, that seemingly underlies it, reflected in the previous 'there is no agreed definition' statement in the introduction that Deuterium was objecting to. --Coroebus 11:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• If reliable, verifiable sources are cited then there'll be no problem... I'm not vehemently contesting the whole "agreed" upon issue. That edit was made by an editor who's editing on this article I know and tend to trust. Whereever the definition is coming from needs to be explicitly spelled out in the intro as well. (→Netscott) 12:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

But that is where we differ, I don't think we need to explictly (as in, spell out within the body of the text rather than link or footnote it) say where our definition comes from, because, as far as I can tell, it is defined in a similar way by most people/sources. I'm discussing it on the talk pages first to try and resolve any disagreements by rational debate before editing the text, which is the polite thing to do. Which is why I am asking you for evidence for this disagreement in definitions, if there is one we should talk about it, but you seem rather reticent to back up your claim. If you don't provide me with any reason to think there is a significant disagreement in definitions then I'll edit it in the way I've indicated (succint description of what the term means, link/footnote to source of definition). --Coroebus 12:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

By all means edit away, I'll just add the specifics later. Until this term is commonly found in dictionaries like the term homophobia is and thereby is fully established in the lexicon of the English language adding blanket defintions without source specification is just an example of original research. (→Netscott) 12:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Coroebus, you said it much better than I could.

And yeah, the claim that there is 'no agreed definition' needs to be cited, otherwise it's OR and unacceptable. Deuterium 10:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• What's OR is writing the article as though "islamophobia" is clearly defined... it is not... you may think that it is but I assure both of you that it is not. The same cannot be said for the terms "homophobia" and "anti-Semitism". (→Netscott) 10:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You can assure us all you like, but that's meaningless without a cite. You have provide sources to prove that "there is no agree definition" of Islamophobia. Anything else is OR and flies in the face of the fact that the dictionary definitions of Islamophobia are in fact very similar. Deuterium 10:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Look, rather than beligerently arguing, do some actual research on the topic.... you will understand what I am talking about. It is not original research to state the obvious in a given article. Also remember that I did not add that wording but I agree with the editor User:Irishpunktom who did add it. (→Netscott) 10:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

UK emphasis in article / need for more work regarding US islamophobia and anti-intolerance

This article seems to have been written by people active in the UK. There is also work being done in the US. I am sure that people that are actively involved can add to the work in this article. CAIR is most prominent in advocating for US Muslims.

---

Islamophobia

This article is not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia and it is biased and offensive to non-muslims and has been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion —Preceding unsigned comment added by BookwormUK (talk • contribs)

That AfD you linked on the article has been closed and the result was to keep the article. It is not appropriate to add it back. jaco♫plane 00:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to nominate it for deletion, you will probably want to create a third nomination page. "Biased and offensive" are not criteria for deletion. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Polls section and OR

This section needs support as being evidence of "islamophobia". A link or two by reliable sources citing these polls is all that is needed. Thanks. (→Netscott) 00:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't and yet again you (Netscott) are showing your bias by taking a ridiculously narrow view of Islamophobia, as last you were arguing that Islamophobia "had no agreed definition". Islamophobia is "bias against Muslims"; the two are synonymous. Would you require that a suvery showing bias against Jews or Homosexuals require explicit references to anti-Semitism or Homophobia? Give me a break. Deuterium 02:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Only for neologisms that don't have a clear definition like "islamophobia". I suppose the fact that I voted "keep" and ensured that a long drawn out and unecessary 3rd AfD for this article didn't occur would be clear evidence of my bias. Also the fact that I repaired the non-functioning citation you included with the poll section establishes that I've got a bias. Remember this article isn't to be defining the term. Please do not remove the {{original research}} tag until there is a consensus to do so. Thanks. (→Netscott) 02:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia does have a clear definition; look in any dictionary. It is synonymous with "bias against muslims" which is what the poll is about. What else do you think the poll should go, if not the Islamophobia article? Deuterium 02:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That's the point, I have looked in several dictionaries and came up empty handed. (→Netscott) 02:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because a word isn't in "several" dictionaries doesn't mean it doesn't have a meaning, and doesn't mean that using the obvious meaning of that word (bias against muslims) is "original research". Deuterium 02:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

When you have folks like former Egyptian cabient member Ahmed Kamal Aboulmagd Ph.D., disputing the neologism and describing the term as "derogatory". it's clear that not everyone agrees with it's usage. (→Netscott) 04:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The UN seems to agree with it. [7] Human Rights Watch seems to recognize the term. [8] The article cites tons of instances, with sources, where the meaning of the term was explicitly stated, others where it was implied. Instances of anti-semitism are listed in Anti-semitism without the seeming burden to find the actual use of the word "anti-semitism" in the text of the sources.Same's true in Islam and Anti-Semitism, and I actually raised this same objection there that's now being raised here. Standards have to be uniformly applied, so if something can only be attributed to Islamphobia here if the source says "Islamophobia", that same rule should apply to other articles as well. If not there, not here either. The logic in those instances seemed to be simply that if an action or policy resembles the definition of anti-semitism, it's okay to include. Islamophobia is prejudice, hate or fear of Islam or Muslims. As such, this poll is reasonable to include as content. Nobody's making this up, so it isn't OR. His Excellency... 04:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, for you people who keep arguing that Islamophobia is a meaningless "neologism" which isn't the same thing as anti-Muslim bias, you should probably change anti-Muslim so it doesn't redirect to Islamophobia and create an entirely new page for what you seem to believe is a completely different concept to Islamophobia. Good luck with it. Deuterium 10:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I would think that a reliable verifiable source could be found in these links or on similar search terms related to this section. No? (→Netscott) 00:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that anti-Muslim shouldn't redirect to Islamophobia. It adds little value and confuses the discussion here. Nysin 06:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Analogue: this poll predicting a Lieberman loss in the recent Connecticut primary (by your reasoning) does not belong in this article because it does not use the words "Connecticut", "U.S.", "Senate", "Election", and "2006" in that order. Come on. BYT 15:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

From RFC. I think it's very hard to claim that the poll is banned from the article based on NOR. The claim, as I understand it, is that a citation is needed that explicitly links the poll to Islamophobia. But I don't think this is so. I first off think it's obvious that "Bias against Muslims" is relevant to Islamophobia. But if it is non-obvious, then all that would be needed is some cites linking "Islamophobia" to "Bias against Muslims", of which I expect there are oodles. I say keep it. --Alecmconroy 06:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion so much about removing this content (I tend to believe the content should remain in the article) but that it is original research for it to remain in the article without citing a source that is pointing to these figures as indicative of "islamophobia". The criticism section of this article (relative to the word and concept of "islamophobia") is substantial enough that particular organizations and/or individuals need to be cited as to these polls being demonstrative of "islamophobia". That should not be difficult to understand. User:His excellency tries to justify this deficiency by pointing to "Islam and Anti-Semitism"'s deficiencies. That is a falsity. (→Netscott) 08:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, by all means, a source that talks about Islamophobia and discusses these statistics would be welcome, and you should work towards finding one. But "bias against muslims" is clearly relevant to a discussion of Islamophobiam, just as "bias against gays" would clearly be relevant to a discussion of homophobia. It's not original research-- it's clearly-cited research from a reliable source. It it's anything, it's verifiable non-original research which you think isn't notable or relevant enough to be mentioned on this page, or which you have some other objection to. I think it is relevant, but even if you somehow thought "bias against muslisms" was somehow irrelevant to "islamophobia", it still wouldn't be original research-- it'd just be non-original research you feel doesn't belong in the article.

But in any case, point taken that a cite connecting "Islamophobia" and that poll would be a good think. I'll poke around to see if one turns up.

---Alecmconroy 08:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well here's your problem. The poll only came out within the last few days. It's probably unrealistic to expect that ANOTHER article would have been written in this short period that would use the term Islamophobia in reference to this poll-- in fact, I don't see many secondary articles talking about this poll at all just yet-- just the main article presenting the poll itself.

But I think it's safe to say that the "bias against muslims" is sufficiently close to "islamophobia" that it goes without saying that it's relevant. Suppose, for example, we had a page on Aids, and we wanted to cite a study that talks about HIV. Sure, technically you could try to insist it's irrelevant because it uses the term "HIV' instead of "AIDS" so it's not technically about AIDS. But when you have ten bazillion cites connecting HIV to AIDS, I think it's obviously relevant. Here, the Gallup poll article talks about "negative feelings or prejudices against people of the Muslim faith", and there are ten bazillion cites to show that "Islamophobia" is connected to "bias against muslims", so... I think it's definitely relevant, it's definitely cited, and I have have removed the Original Research tag.

If you're extra-zealous,you can keep checking google every so often, and eventually someone will pop up using the word "Islamophobia" and that gallup poll in the same article, and then you can add that cite to the article for extra-cited-goodness.

--Alecmconroy 09:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with allowing sources that demonstrate some vague notion of bias as evidence of Islamophobia is that this substantially widens the scope of what is permissible as a source in this article. The article has maintained a delicate balance for quite some time which was maintained by having the requirement that any accusations of Islamophobia should be accompanied by sources that explicitly state this. By allowing these polls into the article, the floodgates have been opened for endless accusations of Islamophobia against politicians and other public figures without truly reliable sources to back up these claims. There would be a double standard in this article if we were not now also going to allow this usage. I think this is a slippery slope and I'm rather disheartened that some people here seem to take advocacy more seriously than the aim of building a neutral encyclopedia article. jaco♫plane 15:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Popping in from RfC- In one sense I have to agree with Jaco after reading all this commentary. "Bias against muslims" is quite broad, whereas Islamophobia is a bit more specific. For instance, some naturally have a bias against muslims in the sense that they would be wary of anyone appearing muslim seen on public transportation. But in other situations interacting with practicers of Islam would not cause alarm at all, thus not categorizing them as "Islamophobic". However, the article or Poll need not necessarily use the term "IP", provided the tone was obvious (eg types of questions). George 23:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Stuff this

Certain individuals are trying to use the fact that Islamophobia is a somewhat new term (if 15 years is "new") to try and remove lots of important information about anti-Muslim sentiment, as part of a pretty obvious agenda.

I'm going to create a new article "anti-Muslim sentiment" (we even have anti-American sentiment so it should easily pass notability) and copy all the generic stuff about anti-Muslim sentiment over to there, where it won't need to be scientifically proved to be relevant by using whatever ludicrous criteria that will satisfy Netscott.

This article can be left as an article about the term Islamophobia, so the hair splitters can knock themselves out. Deuterium 06:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea! I look forward to editing on this soon to be created article. (→Netscott) 06:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Article created: Anti-Muslim sentiment, I've organized it by country since that seems the most logical way to do it. Deuterium 07:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverts

I just made a set of edits comprising some that I could see people disagreeing with (removing the Gallup poll) and some that seem totally innocuous (spelling errors, weasel words). User:Deuterium reverted all of them. Why? It's beyond farcical for editors to have to repeatedly correct the spelling of "discrimination" and the capitalisation of "one" because another editor knee-jerk reverts. Nysin 06:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not my responsibility to sort the wheat from the chaff if you want to go against consensus and make major changes to the article. Deuterium 07:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

(1) What consensus? (2) Major changes? (3) Care to defend that it's "not [your] responsibility to sort the wheat from the chaff if [I] want to go against consensus and make major changes to the article"? Nysin 07:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Diputed content:

A 2006 Gallup survey of American public opinion found that "many Americans harbor strong bias against U.S. Muslims". ("Gallup: Many Americans Harbor Strong Bias Against U.S. Muslims", Editor and Publisher, August 10, 2006.)

• 22% say they would not like to have a Muslim as a neighbor.
• 34% believe U.S. Muslims support al-Qaeda.
• 49% believe U.S. Muslims are loyal to the United States.
• 39% advocate that U.S. Muslims should carry special ID

Protected

Please sort out the question of inserting/removing the poll on the talk page instead of edit warring. Maybe you have to have an RfC or some mediation. Please let me know when a consensus is reached and I will unblock the article abakharev 00:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

There has been an RFC but some people still refuse the consensus. Deuterium 00:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

What "consensus"? So far User:Jacoplane, User:Nysin and User:George m and myself have commented that this info above needs citing relative to the term "islamophobia". User:His excellency conceeded that it needed citing as well. On the other side there's you and User:Alecmconroy and User:BrandonYusufToropov. Do read WP:CON to better understand the term "consensus". (→Netscott) 00:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You are not telling the truth. User:His excellency did no such thing. This is what he said:

Standards have to be uniformly applied, so if something can only be attributed to Islamphobia here if the source says "Islamophobia", that same rule should apply to other articles as well. If not there, not here either. The logic in those instances seemed to be simply that if an action or policy resembles the definition of anti-semitism, it's okay to include. Islamophobia is prejudice, hate or fear of Islam or Muslims. As such, this poll is reasonable to include as content. Nobody's making this up, 'so it isn't OR.

You also misrepresent what User:George m said -- "However, the article or Poll need not necessarily use the term "IP", provided the tone was obvious (eg types of questions)". I would say the tone was obvious in this instance, but we can ask George to clarify himself. Deuterium 00:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I said IP is more narrow than bias against muslims. Careful application of the term until it is better defined would be appropriate, especially since how it is used is going to define it. WP may be an important factor in the development of the term's meaning. We may have a greater academic responsibilty than we realize in many instances. I think this debate should be as lengthy as it has been. Hang in there guys and look for the positive in each other's comments. I hope this helps. George 19:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the question is - if this isn't a case of Islamophobia then what is it? Can someone fear or hate Muslims without being Islamophobic? I don't think so. Deuterium 00:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

User:His excellency is arguing from a falsity (and he states as much ie: "He conceeded") which is this: if it is done wrongly elsewhere it can be done wrongly here. This discussion isn't about things being done wrongly elsewhere but about how they are being done here. (→Netscott) 00:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Can I have the link to the RfC? abakharev 00:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

There it is. (→Netscott) 01:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It is very difficult to interpret as this not a poll but a free discussion, we may have a poll, but lets try to find a compromise first. It appears that the Gallop did not find an islamphobia or bias in many Americans. It is a header crafted by the "Editor & Published Magazine". How about the following text:

• A 2006 Gallup survey of American public opinion found that "a substantial minority of polled Americans have negative feelings or prejudices against people of the Muslim faith".

The reference did not assert what fractions negative feelings are caused by the real-life experience and what are caused by the prejudice or bias. Also if there are doubts if this poll is relevant to the article, then maybe it should not be in the lead of the section? Would such rephrasing be sufficient for the opponents of the inclusion? Are they acceptable for the proponents? abakharev 05:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Alex Bakharev, there's not real opposition to the inclusion of this information it just needs to be cited by a verifiable and reliable source relative to the term "islamophobia". Just including the information in the article is original research without citing who's referring to it using the word "islamophobia". (→Netscott) 05:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The term "islamophobia" is a controversial one (see the Criticism section). For Wikipedia to maintain neutral point of view usage of the term needs to be cited. (→Netscott) 05:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe I see your point. Still I think the information that a respectable study show that a significant number of Americans have negative feelings of Muslims is somehow relevant to the islamophobia article even if this poll is not (or could not) be used to measure islamophobia. Relevance of a sourced fact is an editorial decision not the verifiability question. This my interpretation of the policy that maybe incorrect. If no acceptable compromise would be achieved we are to have a poll. abakharev 06:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

If you haven't already please read fellow longtime Islamophobia editor User:Jacoplane's commentary he added here relative to this question of citing material. (→Netscott) 06:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Muslim sentiment would seem more appropriate for such vaguely related (which isn't a concession: as a reductio one can play six degrees of separation between concepts) inclusions. Nysin 08:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Alex. And arguing that the gallup poll shouldn't be on this page is equivalent to arguing that a poll showing hostility towards homosexuals or Jews shouldn't be on the Homophobia or Anti-Semitism pages. It's silly. Deuterium 04:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with User:Nysin that the place for adding the poll (without properly citing it's usage to demonstrate "islamophobia") is Anti-Muslim sentiment. (→Netscott) 05:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• What is happening here is that there is an attempt to mothball this poll to prevent its inclusion in an article to which it is manifestly relevant.
• If you ask 1000 people whether they "hold anti-Semitic views", you won't get a meaningful poll result because everyone will deny holding such views.
• That does not and cannot mean, however, that a poll whose wording is more intelligent than that -- a poll that explores contemporary attitudes toward Jewish people at a slightly subtler level -- is quote irrelevant unquote to an article on anti-Semitism.
• To the contrary, the better design of the poll makes it MORE relevant to the topic.
• If I may quote only the most glaringly obvious example of this principle... Anti-Semitism reads:
• In 1939 a Roper poll found that only thirty-nine percent of Americans felt that Jews should be treated like other people. Fifty-three percent believed that "Jews are different and should be restricted" and ten percent believed that Jews should be deported.
• Is anyone seriously suggesting that these poll results should be excised from that article because they don't include (or "cite," if you prefer) the word "anti-Semitism"? BYT 10:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent points George 13:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This comparison is a bit of a false analogy due to significant differences between the term "islamophobia" and the term "anti-Semitism". The term "anti-Semitism" is a very mature term having been coined in the late 1800's. The term "islamophobia" has been around since 1991 and has only come into notable usage since late 2001. What this means is that the term "islamophobia" is still very much a dynamic piece of language that continues to be defined and continues on a path towards full adoption into the English lexicon. As well anti-Semitism encompasses an ethno-religious group descended from the ancient Israelites. What ethno-religious group have the world's Muslims descended from? When there are folks in Indonesia who are equally Muslim as folks in Nigeria it is rather clear that there's not been an ethno-religious group that the world's population of Muslims have descended from. There is also the question of neutral point of view. The term "Islamophobia" is heavily criticized. When Wikipedia starts to utilize the term without citing it's usage then Wikipedia loses it's neutrality and credibility. This article has undergone extensive work towards reducing the previous level of original research found in it as well as keeping Wikipedia neutral to the topic. With uncited polls being included in the article a slippery slope begins to form where Wikipedia loses its neutrality relative to the entire topic. (→Netscott) 14:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You forgot [this].

Fifteen years in circulation in quite long enough for a term and the phenomenon it describes to merit rational evaluation and discussion in an encyclopedia. As for its dynamism, its ethnoreligiosity, or even its capacity to vibrate the ether that surrounds our distracted universe, I pass. BYT 15:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

BrandonYusufToropov, it's a pity that you've responded with sarcasm at my respectful response to your earlier post. Regardless, I will address your first line which is a straw man. We're not talking about the merit (or not) of rational evaluation and discussion of this topic, we're talking about citing sources relative to the term "islamophobia". Why is that a problem? (→Netscott) 15:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That's what you're talking about. I'm talking about editors throwing as many possible defenses up to avoid including content from a reliable source that is manifestly relevant to this article.

If I may summarize: "We can't include the poll, because it isn't cited properly by the Gallup organization to the specific word "Islamophobia." And if people don't agree that that's a good reason, we can't include the poll because it doesn't connect to a specific ethnoreligious group. And if people don't agree that that's a good reason, we can't include the poll because it's only traceable to 1991. And if people don't agree that that's a good reason, we can't include the poll because the term in question is heavily criticized. and if people don't agree that that's a good reason, we can't include the poll because including it will cause Wikipedia to lose its neutrality."

Pick a horse and ride it, please. BYT 15:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Deciding to not use the poll just because there's no mention of "Islamophobia" would be a pretty lame decision. BhaiSaab ^talk 15:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, no one has said that Gallup had to use the term "islamophobia" in the poll. All that is needed is another reliable source citing the poll as demonstrative of "islamophobia" (rather than Wikipedia itself citing the poll). Has that not been clear? (→Netscott) 15:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

My error. In the example I gave at Anti-Semitism, are there reliable sources citing the poll as specifically demonstrative of Anti-Semitism? Lacking conclusive evidence in the affirmative, should that poll and all such polls be stripped from the article? BYT 15:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue over the deficiencies of other articles. A wrong elsewhere (which is your view) does not allow for a wrong here. (→Netscott) 15:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. It's pretty clear what's happening here. BYT 15:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What is happening here? (→Netscott) 15:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

BYT: "Pick a horse and ride it"? Must decisions have only a single rationale? Compare them to a retort of such being a "lame decision", and for me the choice is pretty clear. I'll also second Netscott's point about not using 'but anti-Semitism does/doesn't do X' as a rationale. Finally, why not use anti-Muslim sentiment? Nysin 20:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Even better, why not use anti-Muslim sentiment as reported in polls authorized by American sampling and/or reporting institutions? That would take a really long time to find. It's a fundamental principle of editing here that information relevant to the topic to the reader is interested in appear in the article about that topic. Preventing people from finding that information is diversionary and irresponsible, and providing a laundry list of reasons justifying that prevention (i.e., Muslims don't have a single ethnoreligious derivation) is, um, let's say "cynical." 11:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

When there are views from prominent reliable sources criticizing this term (at the UN “Confronting Islamophobia: Education for Tolerance and Understanding” conference no less) why is it such a problem to require a citation of another reliable source utilizing this term while discussing this poll? (→Netscott) 12:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

There are also "views" criticizing the belief that the Holocaust took place. But we don't make the editors at Holocaust jump through hoops. Nor should we. Reality is reality.

The story so far: Certain editors don't want to acknowledge that such a phenomenon as Islamophobia exists. Forced to deal with this article's continued existence, they play semantic games. In the real world, thirty minutes selected at random from any 24-hour period on Fox News should be enough to settle the question of whether Islamophobia exists, but ... we're playing games.

Accordingly: A poll from a nationally respected organization demonstrating attitudes consistent with the phenomenon of Islamophobia isn't relevant to the article, the gameplayers argue, because (fill in the blank A). If A is ever undermined, the Red Queen will produce (fill in the blank B), then (fill in the blank C), then (fill in the blank D). It's a moving target.

So you know what? I'm not going to debate with you about (fill in the blank). I really don't think it accomplishes anything. Let's just poll the community and see what happens. My vote: Time for an RFC. BYT 03:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Could someone explain why there's another article called Anti-Muslim sentiment containing material that should be in this one? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

BYT, which editors don't want to acknowledge that such a phenomenon as Islamophobia exists? Are such editors, in fact, not acknowledging that such a phenomenon as Islamophobia exists? In any case, the basic issue is and has been throughout WP:NOR (well, WP:NPOV for a while a few months ago, but it's improved vastly in that regard since). Unless a reliable source says something, Wikipedia can't claim that something. In particular, unless a reliable source says that whatever those thirty minutes at Fox contain consitutes evidence of Islamophobia, Wikipedia can't use those thirty minutes for that purpose. The (legitimate, insofar as it doesn't amount to indirectly, rather than by dicussing the virtues of the policy, undermine WP:NOR) debate to some degree has been over what amounts to calling something Islamophobia, but analogizing between editors who disagree with calling certain statements by reliable sources evidence of "Islamophobia" and '"views" criticising the Holocaust' is patently unhelpful.

SlimVirgin, Deuterium effectively created anti-Muslim sentiment in its present form:

Also, for you people who keep arguing that Islamophobia is a meaningless "neologism" which isn't the same thing as anti-Muslim bias, you should probably change anti-Muslim so it doesn't redirect to Islamophobia and create an entirely new page for what you seem to believe is a completely different concept to Islamophobia. Good luck with it. Deuterium 10:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

in response to the WP:NOR issues which kept (and keep) arising. Nysin 06:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Nysin. The material should probably be moved back here and the title redirected. Does anyone have objections to that? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I'm concerned about the NOR issues with regard to the material contained within the article, and the redirect just encourages them: "But I came here via anti-Muslim sentiment, so ...". Further discussion here. Nysin 08:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing in the discussion you linked to that shows a need for two pages about the same thing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

One article primarily covers the term "Islamophobia" and it's usage as opposed to general anti-Muslim sentiment (much like the article new anti-Semitism as opposed to anti-Semitism). (→Netscott) 08:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The concept of NAS is different from traditional anti-Semitism. What is the purported difference between anti-Muslim sentiment and Islamophobia? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Mostly the usage of the word "Islamophobia" as a language tool. If you have not already done so I'd advise you to read the article. Also review the history of Anti-Muslim sentiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and you'll see that I made efforts to reduce duplication of content (copied over by Deuterium (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)) between the two articles. My efforts were reverted. (→Netscott) 08:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no need for two articles. What is a "language tool"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The term

I don't know what has happened to this article, but it has deteriorated since I last read it. The intro is an exercise in pure well poisoning; we more or less state there is no such thing. When I last saw it, the intro was as follows, and it needs to be returned to something like this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia is a neologism used to refer to an irrational fear or prejudice towards Muslims and the religion of Islam.

Prejudice against Muslims is believed to have increased since the September 11, 2001 attacks. Abduljalil Sajid, an adviser to the Commission on British Muslims, an anti-racism group, has said he believes many organizations are "institutionally Islamophobic". He has said that "since the 11 September attacks the single most important concern has been police harassment of Muslims. Even one of [Britain's] Muslim peers ... has been stopped twice by police." [9] Secretary-General Kofi Annan told a December 7, 2004 UN conference on the emergence of Islamophobia that "[w]hen the world is compelled to coin a new term to take account of increasingly widespread bigotry — that is a sad and troubling development. Such is the case with 'Islamophobia'." [10]

American journalist Stephen Schwartz has defined Islamophobia as the condemnation of the entirety of Islam and its history as extremist, denying the existence of a moderate Muslim majority, regarding Islam as a problem for the world, treating conflicts involving Muslims as necessarily their own fault, insisting that Muslims make changes to their religion, and inciting war against Islam as a whole. [11]

The concept of Islamophobia has been questioned, with some commentators arguing that the term can also be used to censor legitimate criticism of Islam and of individual Muslims. [12]

I'm actually indifferent as to the existence of anti-Muslim sentiment, per se. I object to merging (most of) its (non-redundant) content here and I object to redirecting it here, but to infer from that that I see a need for "two pages about the same thing" (modulo differences in what you and I might see as the same thing) represents a false dilemma. For example, this page could be renamed, per that discussion (not sure whether I'd support it or not, but I wouldn't strongly oppose it, at least), or anti-Muslim sentiment could simply be deleted so long as Deuterium stopped trying to insert WP:NOR-violating material here. Nysin 08:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the NOR? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Prior to the last several month this artice was defining the term "Islamophobia". Dictionary reliable source defintions of the actual term "Islamophobia" are rare. What has occurred since that time is the original research utilized to the define the term has been edited out and the article has had it's prior POV neutralized. This is partly what User:Nysin is referring to. (→Netscott) 08:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

None of [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], or [18] contains a reference to Islamophobia. It follows that the sections of the article dependent on them (all but the prior-poll/CAIR reference, the second paragraph of Anti-Muslim_sentiment#Britain, and Anti-Muslim_sentiment#Germany) violate WP:NOR in inferring Islamophobia from their sources. Nysin 09:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

There are lots of good sources out there about Islamophobia, so there's no need for OR. The problem is that many of the good sources aren't even mentioned here, and the page is written up as basically just a list of quotes, with no narrative. And why does the first sentence contain a reference to a dictionary definition? It's a peculiar way to start an article, particularly when Kofi Annan has spoken about Islamophobia and there has been a UN conference about it. No need for dictionaries. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Nysin, there's no need for a source to use the word "Islamphobia" explicitly. It just has to be clear that that's what they're talking about. We don't insist that a source use the term "Holocaust denial" when saying there were no gas chambers. To insist on the usage of that term alone is wikilawyering and getting close to WP:POINT. That's not what the OR policy is there to facilitate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken there SlimVirgin. That same UN conference essentially opened with a very prominent Muslim referring to the term as "derogatory". Please do read this article about that. Due to the fact that this term is so signicantly criticized if utilization of it is not cited then Wikipedia loses neutral point of view. (→Netscott) 09:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not mistaken. If you know of a policy in Wikipedia that states we may only use sources that refer to the precise title of the article, or a policy that implies anything close to that, please show me. I've already read that article. I don't see what point it supports.

The bottom line is that you can't exclude sources just because they don't use that precise terminology, and there isn't a single good editor on Wikipedia who will support you in that effort. If the sources are reliable, and if they are discussing contemporary prejudice against Muslims, their material belongs in this article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

As meditation about this issue previously was denied (by the mediation cabal) I would recommend either an RfC or an ArbCom case to adopt what you are saying SlimVirgin. (→Netscott) 09:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome to put up an article RfC. The ArbCom doesn't do content issues. All we have to do content-wise is edit within the policies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Since Netscott and Nysin are being extremely stubborn about this issue and are repeatedly defying consensus and common sense to the extent that this page has been protected, some type of formal action against them may be the only solution here. An added advantage is that a formal injunction may also stop Netscott from disrupting other articles such as New Anti-Semitism.

I created the Anti-Muslim sentiment page as a temporary work-around to avoid Netscott from removing material and eventually I do hope that the content can be merged with the content of this article. Deuterium 10:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say in the meantime all we have to do is add material allowed under WP:V and WP:NOR. If everyone sticks to the content policies, we shouldn't have any more trouble. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, what consensus? User:SlimVirgin has merely imagined (perhaps correctly, but so far it's hypothetical as here presented) into being one of "good" editors, and you didn't show previously any such consensus existed among editors already involved with this article. Further, "Common sense" is a mental shortcut at best unreliably prone to one's own biases (whether I'm similarly biased or not isn't relevant here, to preempt the obvious response: I'm not using "common sense" as a 'reason') and at worst deceptive.

Finally, WP:NOR explicitly defines the material of this article as subject to greater restrictions than an ordinary article:

* It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.

Nysin 15:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

But there are many, many reliable sources to attribute positions to, so that's not an issue. This article can't be written as though the phenomenon doesn't exist, because reliable, mainstream sources say it does. Therefore, we write about it in a disinterested tone with no well poisoning, attributing everything we write to reliable sources.

There is no need for the sources to have used the word Islamophobia. It suffices for our purposes of having that word as the title that many reliable sources have used it, including the Secretary General of the United Nations. Therefore, the credibility of the word is established. It has been invited to all the right parties.

What we do from now on is allow a little leverage so that we're not wikilawyering and engaging in WP:POINT. If a source discusses irrational prejudice against Muslims, he is discussing Islamophobia, even if he doesn't use that precise term. That doesn't mean we allow the net to be cast too wide either. It's going to boil down to editorial judgment and common sense to determine what the outer limits are. That isn't a violation of OR. The policy of NOR depends on common sense, as do they all. The position we should adopt should be a conservative one, erring on the side of caution, but not going so far as to wikilawyer. That will take some finely tuned editorial judgment. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It is 100% wrong to be thinking in terms of, "If a source discusses irrational prejudice against Muslims, he is discussing Islamophobia, even if he doesn't use that precise term" particularly when there is such voluminous criticism of the term that exists. User:Nysin hit the hammer on the head with the citation about the utilization of neologisms. This section of Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms makes it clear that doing so is original research. Wikipedia has to maintain neutral point of view (it is non-negotiable policy). Not only would the citing of information relative to general "prejudice against Muslims" not specifically involving the usage of the term "Islamophobia" be original research but by allowing the introduction of such uncited material into the article Wikipedia would in effect be itself saying that the given info is an example of "Islamophobia" which given all of the criticism of the term would put Wikipedia completely outside of neutral point of view. (→Netscott) 23:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, you've misunderstood NOR, and you also appear not to have read the sources. The word has established itself, and has a fairly clear meaning. Any source who is discussing that issue is therefore a reliable source for this article, whether they use that exact term or not. I don't know what you meant by your last point. The editing approach that has been taken with this article has reduced it to a list of quotes, and most of the good sources are missing, so clearly something has gone wrong. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, you said above that the word was a "language tool." What is a language tool? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

No there's only one person misunderstanding NOR here SlimVirgin. Wikipedia's not going to be using a heavily criticized neologism as though it is an established part of the Enlgish lexicon (which it certainly is not) when doing so directly counters policy. Given your lack of a history editing on this topic you are demonstrating " The Truth™ " about editing on it. Neutal point of view will be maintained though proper citations of verifiable and reliable sources relative to the neologistic term and the concept and its usage. (→Netscott) 07:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I've previously written an intro for this page, so I do have an edit history here. I also helped to write the NOR policy so I know what it says and means, and I know that you're misusing it; and I helped to write WP:V, so I know what that means too. I've shown you sources that show Islamophobia is now a widely used word; it has been used by the United Nations, the U.S. govt, the British govt, the European Union, by respected academics, and on and on. Your attempts to say otherwise are completely pointless.

I ask again (third time): what is a "language tool"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

According to numerous critics much like the phrase "new anti-Semitism" the term "Islamophobia" has been repeatedly used as a tool to silence critics of Islam (like Ayaan Hirsi Ali). Through avoidance of original research and maintaining neutral point of view Wikipedia will not "enhance" the ability to utilize the terms as tools in these regards. (→Netscott) 08:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You're POV pushing. It's not up to you to decide whether Islamophobia is a valid term. Reliable sources are using it. That is all we need to know.

You still haven't said what a "language tool" is. Is that something you made up? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I've used the term "tool" here just above to explain that... did you not gather that? The last thing I'm doing is POV pushing. I'm NPOV pushing. So long as relative to the term "Islamophobia" content added to this article is cited there'll not be any content disputes from me. This will remain true so long as Wikipedia isn't using this neologism itself as well. (→Netscott) 08:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you're just repeating yourself, so I'm going to stop responding to you. There's no such term in this context as "language tool"; you haven't grasped the policies; and while there should be no attempt to talk up this term, you're not going to be allowed to poison the well against it either. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

There's only one person who hasn't grasped the policies here SlimVirign (and likewise on new anti-Semitism). You can be sure that I'll be making efforts to rectify problems there as well. Your constant misrepresenting of facts is also not going to assist your cause in the long run. (→Netscott) 08:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Google Books/Amazon search

I looked Islamophobia up on Google Books and Amazon, which are better indicators of the use of a term by reliable sources than a straightforward Google search. The former lists 1,420 pages using the word Islamophobia, including in book titles, and Amazon mentions 329. This is significant because these are mostly books published by mainstream publishers, academics, and government departments. There's material from the European Union, the United Nations, and the United States government, and from respected scholars in the field such as Bernard Lewis, all using that word to describe a phenomenon they regard as real. Therefore, this is not an article about the use of the word, but about the concept or alleged phenomenon. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for the lead section

When the page is unprotected, I'd like to put the following up as a working draft. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia is the concept of a prejudice against, or the demonization of, Muslims and the religion of Islam. The term dates back to the 1980s or 90s, although its use has increased significantly since the September 11, 2001 attacks, when anti-Muslim prejudice became more widespread. Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations, told a UN conference in 2004: "[W]hen the world is compelled to coin a new term to take account of increasingly widespread bigotry, that is a sad and troubling development. Such is the case with Islamophobia.

The British Runnymede Trust decribed Islamophobia in 1997 as the view that Islam has no values in common with other cultures; is inferior to the West; is a violent political ideology rather than a religion; that its criticisms of the West have no substance; and that discriminatory practices against Muslims are justified. The Trust expressed concern about the vulnerability of Muslims to physical assault as a result of the prejudice. Abduljalil Sajid, an adviser to the Trust, argues that many organizations are "institutionally Islamophobic."

American writer Stephen Schwartz, director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism, has cautioned against what he sees as a tendency to accuse all opponents of Islamic radicalism of Islamophobia, but writes that it is nevertheless a real phenomenon. He defines it as the condemnation of the entirety of Islam and its history as extremist, denying the existence of a moderate Muslim majority, regarding Islam as a problem for the world, treating conflicts involving Muslims as necessarily their own fault, insisting that Muslims make changes to their religion, and inciting war against Islam as a whole.

British writer and academic Kenan Malik has criticized the concept, calling Islamophobia a "myth." Malik argues that the concept confuses discrimination against Muslims with criticism of Islam, and that the charge of Islamophobia is used to silence critics of the religion, including Muslims who want to reform it. The novelist Salman Rushdie was among the signatories to a statement in March 2006 calling Islamophobia a "wretched concept that confuses criticism of Islam as a religion and stigmatisation of those who believe in it."

I'm guessing this is a rather old version of this article as it's referring to original research that's since been removed (ie: "The term dates back to the 1980s or 90s"). As well this edit would just re-introduce the characterizations found in this section back into the lead and make the article lop-sided. I would suggest that you read this section of talk about the introduction (in particular the characterization of your editing on new anti-Semitism) before you go any further. (→Netscott) 07:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't an old version. I just wrote it, although I did incorporate some material from the last intro I wrote for this page. The 80s/90s edit is not OR; it is sourced to Kofi Annan. The page would not become lop-sided because of a better intro; as it stands, the intro is inappropriate because it's trying to poison the well, and the article is just a list of quotes. After the intro is done, the rest of the page will have to be written properly too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Since when do we rely upon non-authoritative sources who describe the origins of a term as, "The word seems to have emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s."? And give them particular preference in the lead? I can tell you now SlimVirgin, if you are serious about attempting to make such edits you'd be better prepared for the long haul because I will remove such nonsense and it's equivalents tenaciously for the foreseeable future. (→Netscott) 07:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Then you'll be fighting a losing battle. Your editing here and elsewhere shows you have completely misunderstood the content policies. We report what reliable sources say. Kofi Annan, like it or not, is a reliable source. If you can find a more detailed source on the origins of the term, by all means produce it, and so long as it is at least as reliable as the United Nations, we can certainly replace it. But we're not going to remove information just because you don't like it. Please review WP:V very carefully, and stop misusing the NOR policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Do not forget SlimVirgin that Wikipedia is not a battleground we report what reliable sources say yes... but we don't preference reliable sources when they have no authoritity on a given subject. A given individual may be a reliable source but only in as much as they are an authority on a given topic of discussion. If we followed your thinking we could equally utilize Daniel Pipes's ideas about Islamophobia for the lead wherein he describes it's origin as dating back to 1996. (Given the controversial nature of his views I'd be very hesitant about relying upon Daniel Pipes for "authoritative" content for this article.) (→Netscott) 08:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The United Nations is a source that is regarded as reliable on virtually all issues such as this, whether or not we like what they say or agree with it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's see with respect to neutral point of view what are Wikipedia editors to do when two "reliable sources" are in conflict about a given neologism's origin date, etc? (→Netscott) 08:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

What is a language tool?

Netscott, you wrote above that Islamophobia is a "language tool." I've asked you three times to explain, but you may not have seen the question. Can you please say what a "language tool" is? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Lead section comparison

Current lead section

SV's proposed lead section

Islamophobia is a neologism that in one definition found in Princeton University's Word Net refers to, "prejudice against Islam and Muslims". The term, which is known to date back to 1991, became prominent in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The concept of Islamophobia has attracted some controversy, and a number of writers, journalists, and intellectuals including Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses, have criticized it for allegedly confusing the criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers. Others such as Jonathan Steele, Tariq Ali and Tariq Ramadan do not reject the concept, but differ to how it is manifested, and how "Islamophobia" can be stopped.

Islamophobia is the concept of a prejudice against or demonization of Muslims, and a dread or hatred of Islam. The term dates back to the late 1980s or early 90s, although its use has increased significantly since the September 11, 2001 attacks. Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations, told a UN conference in 2004: "[W]hen the world is compelled to coin a new term to take account of increasingly widespread bigotry, that is a sad and troubling development. Such is the case with Islamophobia. Anja Rudiger, Executive Coordinator of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, argues that it is no longer acceptable to use skin color as an attribute to distinguish people, and that religion and culture have gained currency as "markers of seemingly 'natural' kinds of differences." She writes that Islam has become "the new 'other' ..." The British Runnymede Trust decribed Islamophobia in 1997 as the view that Islam has no values in common with other cultures; is inferior to the West; is a violent political ideology rather than a religion; that its criticisms of the West have no substance; and that discriminatory practices against Muslims are justified. American writer Stephen Schwartz, director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism, has cautioned against what he sees as a tendency to accuse all opponents of Islamic radicalism of Islamophobia, but writes that it is nevertheless a real phenomenon. He defines it as the condemnation of the entirety of Islam and its history as extremist, denying the existence of a moderate Muslim majority, regarding Islam as a problem for the world, treating conflicts involving Muslims as necessarily their own fault, insisting that Muslims make changes to their religion, and inciting war against Islam as a whole. British writer and academic Kenan Malik has criticized the concept, calling Islamophobia a "myth." Malik argues that the concept confuses discrimination against Muslims with criticism of Islam, and that the term is used to silence critics of the religion, including Muslims who want to reform it. The novelist Salman Rushdie was among the signatories to a statement in March 2006 calling Islamophobia a "wretched concept that confuses criticism of Islam as a religion and stigmatisation of those who believe in it." Notes

Working version or not?

I've just reverted this edit due to the fact that my own editing on this section has been reverted and I've been told post your own if you have a suggestion. Since when does Wikipedia allow for working versions on talk pages (particularly ones that can't be edited by other editors)? (→Netscott) 11:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's proposed intro (edited)

Islamophobia is the concept of a prejudice against, or the demonization of, Muslims and the religion of Islam. The term dates back to the late 1980s or early 90s, although its use has increased significantly since the September 11, 2001 attacks. Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations, told a UN conference in 2004: "[W]hen the world is compelled to coin a new term to take account of increasingly widespread bigotry, that is a sad and troubling development. Such is the case with Islamophobia.

• Most of Kofi Annan's text would not be in the lead due to the undue weight provisions of NPOV as Kofi Annan is not on record for being an authority on the subject of "Islamophobia".

The rest of the content is already found in the characterizations section and does not need to be duplicated in the lead. (→Netscott) 09:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The 1997 Runnymede Trust inquiry, which was backed by the British government, says the same as the United Nations about the term being first used in the late 80s. My guess is that the United Nations and the British government probably trump Netscott's personal views in terms of being reliable sources.

The rest of the article needs to be rewritten, so there will be no repetition between the intro and the rest of the text. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, if this is your working version [19] then kindly take your editing it to User:SlimVirgin/Islamophobia otherwise don't expect others to not edit this "working version" (which frankly isn't what talk pages are for). If you're open to others editing on this working version then I suggest you start Islamophobia/Working version intro. (→Netscott) 10:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for discussing the content of articles, which is what is being done. The page has been protected because of your behavior, and so this is the best thing we have in the meantime. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I see. In the future do avoid utilizing talk pages for editing on "working versions" particularly if you don't intend to let others edit them. (→Netscott) 10:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, you've been editing regularly only since this February this year. Yet you insist that I don't understand WP:NOR, WP:V, or WP:NPOV, even though I helped to write two of them (but you do); I don't understand how to use talk pages (but you do); the Secretary-General of the United Nations doesn't count as an authoritative source (but you do); and I see from this talk page that you've been liberally insulting other editors, including calling people idiots. Do you even admit of the possibility that you could be wrong about any of these things? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You're outright lying SlimVirgin (and doing so repetitively). It is true that I did call User:Raphael1 an idiot which is the only personal attack I've ever committed on Wikipedia but given the fact that User:Raphael1 lied about my actions himself and never apologized it is a bit understandable (These comments go some way towards explaining that as well). You cite one example and label it "liberally insulting other editors", stop misrepresenting (ie: lying). I've never claimed to be an authoritative source on anything relative to this article. But the fact that I have studied this subject and have been editing on this article for quite some time I certainly am in a better position to recognize who's an authoritative source about its subject than some editor who hasn't been editing consistently on the article for any length of time (namely yourself). It doesn't matter what we think what matters is what verifiable and reliable sources are saying (particularly ones who have an authority on the subject of the article). (→Netscott) 11:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You say you've made only one personal attack on Wikipedia, when you called Raphael an idiot, but you have just called me a liar and Raphael too. This speaks for itself.

As you can see, my proposed lead section uses good sources, including the United Nations, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, and a report written by a Runnymede Trust commission, chaired by the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sussex, and backed by the British government. You don't get much more reliable than that.

Your behavior here is astonishing. You are repeatedly editing or reverting my posts. Please note that editors can be blocked for doing that, and if you do it again, I will report you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

Netscott, suppose we let some other editors get a word in here. Proposing a revision to the associated article is, FYI, an acceptable use of a talk page. Slim's version (unmolested, below) works for me. What do other people think? BYT 12:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia is the concept of a prejudice against or demonization of Muslims, and a dread or hatred of Islam. The term dates back to the late 1980s or early 90s, although its use has increased significantly since the September 11, 2001 attacks. Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations, told a UN conference in 2004: "[W]hen the world is compelled to coin a new term to take account of increasingly widespread bigotry, that is a sad and troubling development. Such is the case with Islamophobia.

Anja Rudiger, Executive Coordinator of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, argues that it is no longer acceptable to use skin color as an attribute to distinguish people, and that religion and culture have gained currency as "markers of seemingly 'natural' kinds of differences." She writes that Islam has become "the new 'other' ..."

The British Runnymede Trust decribed Islamophobia in 1997 as the view that Islam has no values in common with other cultures; is inferior to the West; is a violent political ideology rather than a religion; that its criticisms of the West have no substance; and that discriminatory practices against Muslims are justified. American writer Stephen Schwartz, director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism, has cautioned against what he sees as a tendency to accuse all opponents of Islamic radicalism of Islamophobia, but writes that it is nevertheless a real phenomenon. He defines it as the condemnation of the entirety of Islam and its history as extremist, denying the existence of a moderate Muslim majority, regarding Islam as a problem for the world, treating conflicts involving Muslims as necessarily their own fault, insisting that Muslims make changes to their religion, and inciting war against Islam as a whole.

British writer and academic Kenan Malik has criticized the concept, calling Islamophobia a "myth." Malik argues that the concept confuses discrimination against Muslims with criticism of Islam, and that the term is used to silence critics of the religion, including Muslims who want to reform it. The novelist Salman Rushdie was among the signatories to a statement in March 2006 calling Islamophobia a "wretched concept that confuses criticism of Islam as a religion and stigmatisation of those who believe in it."

This version is fine with me, and a vast improvement upon the current introduction. Deuterium 13:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with BYT and Deuterium. I would only add that the intro is perhaps a touch longer than standard. But otherwise, much-improved. IronDuke 14:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Much improved version, giving a better overview of the controversy that surrounds this term. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

To me, the clearest difference between Nettscott´s version and SlimVirgin´s is simply that SV´s is well-written and Nettscott´s is not. So is Nettscott just committed to poor style? Or is Nettscott pushing some POV agenda? What is really at stake in these two different versions? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. FeloniousMonk 17:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Vastly superior. Omitting the Commission on British Muslims and Islamo-neolo-phobia from the lead, for ex., is clear original research. El_C 09:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback everyone. I'd like to request unprotection now (it's been protected for 10 days) so the lead can be replaced with the above, and more work done on a rewrite. If anyone objects, please let me know. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing that User:El C's comment "Vastly superior" was sarcastic in nature considering his subsequent commentary. It is encouraging to see the level of interest here now as outside of about 3 or 4 editors this article has not received much attention. One can only hope that those voicing themselves here won't merely remain Johnny-come-latelys and will actually stay on the scene to help improve the article. Folks should know that the version that User:SlimVirgin is making her comparison to is not "my" version but is a version that has been arrived at after long disputes over content here. Once SlimVirgin's version goes into place one can be sure that it'll be edited heavily. (→Netscott) 17:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Please state your intentions rather than leaving cryptic comments. I'm trying to find out whether it's safe to request unprotection, or whether you'll start edit warring again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

And I don't think El C's comment was sarcastic, at least not in the way you're interpreting it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, my comments are not cryptic. I'm not threatening to edit war here. This article has a long history of contention that was well in effect before I ever came here. There is a reason that there are links to 8 archives and this article has been proposed for deletion three times. Have a look at the log for this article. (→Netscott) 17:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The page history stats show that you've edited it more than anyone else, with your first edit on March 20 this year. Picking a random version from February, it's better than the current version i.e. it's a proper article and not a list of quotes, and there's no well poisoning. That's not to say there's no good information in the current version, but it needs to be written up into a narrative, and the criticism should be woven into it. The material in anti-Muslim sentiment needs to be merged in here, because there's no need for two articles (unless you have a reliable source showing the subject matter is different), and if possible we should make more use of scholarly sources rather than journalists. Most importantly, we should not write in a tone that suggests there is no such thing. We're here only to reflect what the sources say and our tone should be neutral and disinterested. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

We also don't use dictionaries as sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Refs

Are the refs looking odd for anyone else? Mine start at 101 and have doubled up at the end, but it could be my browser. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

They look fine to me. They end with 100... IronDuke 22:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Mine end with 185. Weird. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

And by that I mean they go from 1 to 185 in the Notes section, with a lot of doubling; but in the text, the first ref is 101. I've never seen this happen before. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

In my browser(s) looks good... maybe a rendering glitch? I checked with Safari and Firefox on Mac OS X, as well as MSIE 6.x on Windows. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It's happening on a number of articles for me, but apparently not to anyone else. :-( SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks good here. Nysin 05:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Tidying

I've made a start on tidying this. If I remove something as unsourced, it doesn't mean it's gone forever; I'll look for a source and if I find one, and if the point is worth including (e.g. isn't repetitive and is on-topic), I'll put it back. So if you see something you don't like, please leave a note here about it rather than reverting. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Efforts against Islamophobia section

Some of the items in that section, are related to generiacally to Islam and not specifically to "Islamophobia". That list needs to be paired down to include only these that use the specific term. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

100% agree with you Jossi... that should be the case for the entire article. (→Netscott) 22:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and be bold, then. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm going to sit back for a day or two and let other editors have a crack at this article. If these changes aren't made though I'll be sure to get to it. (→Netscott) 23:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

An issue that I never really brought up before, and didn't see anyone else bring up: if article A satisfies WP:NOR (by whatever criteria end up being used) and article B refers to the same factual events but does not, itself, satisfy WP:NOR, should article B be allowed to be used? The other issue, which comes up again in the airline section just added, is that some of sources don't have the putative news source stating something, but quoting some individual whose status as an WP:RS seems dubious. Nysin 04:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I'd need to see examples of both issues before commenting. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of entire criticism section

[20]. Why? Nysin 04:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It's being moved, not removed. In progress. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

One section on the behalf of one person?

My Questions:

1. Who is Jehanzeb Hasan? Why is he notable? Is he an scholar of Islamic studies?

2. Why one whole section should be dedicated to him?

--Reza1 06:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

His arguments are very solid and it's a well-written, extensively quoted article. Also, he's an academic source, albeit not a senior one. We have too much casual commentary in this article and not enough arguments or scholarly opinion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I appreciate your nice idea of adding Jehanzeb Hasan's image. I don't wish to undo hard work of others. But please note that quotes from Jehanzeb Hasan should be there temporarily and should be replaced by real academic sources. "Jehanzeb Hasan is a research assistant and graduate student in English at California State University, East Bay. His areas of interest are in the history and literature of minorities in the United States, the politics of representation in art, and postcolonial literature" He is no scholar of Islam. Yes, he is an academic but his area of experise is not Islamic studies. --Reza1 04:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This article isn't about Islam, so we don't need sources who are experts in Islamic studies. It's about Islamophobia and therefore someone who has specialized in the history of minorities is well placed to discuss it. These quotes should not be in the article temporarily. It's an interesting point of view, well expressed by someone researching a relevant field within academia, and as such entirely appropropriate.

If you have other academic sources you want to add, by all means do so. The more, the merrier. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, it is about relations between Islam and other religions; so it is about Islam. Islamophobia isn't a very recent phenomena (the word may be coined recently though). Academic books for example talk about Islamophobia in medieval era. I am not personally knowlegable on this topic but I'm sure Jehanzeb Hasan's comment could be easily backed up by peer reviewed university press published books. Cheers, --Reza1 05:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure they could too, and it would be good to find them; and also good to find academic sources who argue differently. Just because that section currently contains the arguments of one scholar doesn't mean it has to stay that way. The more scholarly opinion we have in here, the better. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --Reza1 05:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I should clarify my thinking. I don't like to see articles that are essentially long lists of quotations. Too many articles on Wikipedia are like that, because people edit subjects they know little or nothing about, so they grab a quote from source 1, and another from source 2, and so on, and then just list them.

I think I am doing the same thing. I recently added a new quote to the list of quotes posted on the page Islam and anti-Semitism. :P If you could please revise the intro of that article so that I may get your point better, I would be greatful. --Reza1 05:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

What I look for when I'm writing about something is arguments, and I like to present different arguments for or against the various aspects of the subject. It's much more informative, and makes the page more interesting. I've therefore included Hasan's work because his arguments are interesting and strong. It would be good to find some others, so if you know of others, please do add them, or tell me where to look and I'll add them. Let's find more arguments (as opposed to simple commentary) and build the page up. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point. Unfortunately, my whole knowledge comes from google. I'll add if I found anything interesting. --Reza1 05:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This is another sad example of abuse of Wikipedia in order to push the interests of MESA Nostra, Reza1. This individual is not notable. At Wikipedia Review there is an interesting thread about SlimVirgin and her cyber-exploits, though. 81.58.29.91 11:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC) (guess why I do not bother to take a nickname here:Wikipedia is degenerating and succumbing to politically correct partisanism at an alarming pace).

Some academic sources on Islamophobia

'Following Muhammad: Rethinking Islam in the Contemporary World' (UNC Press, 2003) by Carl Ernst, and 'The New Crusades: Constructing the Muslim Enemy', ed. Emran Qureshi and Michael A. Sells (Columbia University Press, 2003). --Reza1 08:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Reza. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Incidents on aircraft

This section consists entirely of reported, individual opinions of either parties allegedly targeted or close family members (sister, brother, father...). The institutional responses (India's and that of the Tories, for example) are not without violating NOR interpretable as indicating Islamophobia. In at least one case, the parties themselves involved don't even attributed it to Islamophobia (or anything directly pertaining to Islam or being Muslim): "I suppose he's right. We were victimised simply because we were Asians." [21]. (Whilst there's indeed a quotation "Just because we're Muslim, does not mean we are suicide bombers.", it's not clear from that they're reading cause into it. They might be, but that's the sort of thing that quickly becomes original research.) [22] is about (1) racism (what's the Muslim race?) and (2) the Arab language. Again, no mention of religion. Both [23] and [24] couch comments in "He believes ...", thus leaving the statements as purely unsubstantiated opinions. The entire section is based on such sources, as such is too poorly supported to remain in the article in anything resembling its present form. Nysin 11:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

How can you possibly say "it's not clear from that they're reading cause into it" .. why else would they say "Just because we're Muslim, does not mean we are suicide bombers"? --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It might be interesting to add a section on racial profiling and to include those examples in that section, because I know that racial profiling has been discussed in terms of Islamophobia. I'll look for sources when I have time. That was a good addition you made today, IPT. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Irishpunktom, I'm not sure, but given that they don't actually state any casuality associated with that the religion they subscribe to, Wikipedia shouldn't infer it (whether it be true or false). SlimVirgin, are your putative sources slightly more explicit than the current ones? Nysin 14:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

POV

This article contains persistant bias. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.58.29.91 (talk • contribs) .

You need to provide some substantiation for that claim if you want it to be acted upon. Please provide specific examples and suggested remedies. --StuffOfInterest 15:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

When does a neologism become a mainstream concept? Mrdthree 18:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

A related question: there've been a couple of sources dating the term to, say, 1991, or Annan's vaguaries. Whilst they do qualify by Wikipedia's standards, what's the earliest primary source mention available of them? That is, not a 200x document stating "it originated in this year", but a 199x or 198x document containing the term "Islamophobia" in something related to its current usage. I found a 1995 or 1996 or so CAIR press release, but that was about it as far as sources of note (that is, not with only a USENET pseudonym), and those claims of early-90's vintage would seem more convincing after seeing the documents upon which they were based. Nysin 22:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

So we can conclude that this article is POV, in my humble opinion. CAIR cannot be accepted as a neutral information source due to its linkage with terrorist organisations and indictment of key persons in anti-terrorism lawsuits. 81.58.29.91 10:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

81, if you want to be taken seriously, please say who you normally edit as. The lead section is not going to include Robert Spencer; in fact, I see no need to cite him anywhere on the page, but certainly not in the lead. We're trying to increase the quality of this article, not drag it into the gutter. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It might help to futher your cause if you can provide any proof that including Robert Spencer (a New York Times top-20 book author and participant in several high-profile think tanks) will drag it into the gutter. His critics issue ad-hominem attacks, but fail to provide proof for their allegations that that his statements are fundamentally false, which essentially classifies their practices rather than those of their victim as contrary to encyclopaedic standards. I added the epithet "controversial" though in order to address your concerns. 81.58.29.91 13:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Germen, if you're going to edit this page, please use your account. Spencer is not an academic or a specialist on Islam. The website he runs is full of mindless bigotry. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, 'SlimVirgin', it might help when you can provide proof of this 'bigotry' or prove that statements he makes are inaccurate. He quotes from the Qur'an and the Hadith, as well as established Islamic literature. There is no Wikipedia policy which forbids using an anonymous IP address while editing an article, so I do not understand your request. Want to send a bomb letter to me? :p Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 15:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Germen, have a look at this: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:MqnbYP3KrGgJ:www.unc.edu/courses/2004spring/reli/026/001/spencer.htm ; Professor Khaleel Mohammed holds that "Spencer portrays himself as a scholar of Islam, and that he is not."..."I consider myself a scholar and therefore prefer to engage in discussion where facts, rather than fictions and prejudgments are presented. When therefore I am told that the pope apologised for the Crusades, or that Jihad only means war, or that I have to accept interpretations of the Quran that non-Muslims (with no good intentions or knowledge of Islam) seek to force upon me, I see a certain agendum developing: one that is based on hate, and I refuse to be part of such an intellectual crime... There are certain stereotypes that extremists try to sell to the public: that all Arab countries are racist, closed to free discussion. I can only state that from my experience, I have encountered racism, anti-semitism, as well as free discussion in Arab countries--the same as I have encountered in the U.S. Indeed the hateful material that I have seen on the internet has come largely NOT from the Arabs and Muslims (although they are not free from blame), but rather from hatemongers based right here in the United States"--Reza1 23:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Thanks for tracking down those sources, Reza. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Reza1 05:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Who is Jehanzeb Hasan? Mrdthree 14:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Conflating issues

I get Islamophobia, "a prejudice against or demonization of Muslims which manifests itself in violence, harassment, discrimination, and stereotyping." but I think that listing polls about attitudes toward muslims is hardly evidence of a desire to harrass or do violence to muslims. So I think rather than labelling a section "Country-specific polls and surveys" it should be specified this is reagrding negative attitudes. If the point about harrassment or violence needs to be made then that is separate research. Mrdthree 14:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This is the sort of fun one gets when one stops requiring sources to actually name "Islamophobia". Nysin 14:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Concept/phenomenon

I think we should return to calling Islamophobia a concept. If we say "phenomenon," then others will add "alleged," which makes it sound as though we're doubting it. "Neologism" does the same, and it's not really a neologism now anyway. "Concept" is entirely neutral. It is indeed a concept, but saying so doesn't come down on the side of it existing, or not. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I searched into several academic sources. None of them said it is a "concept". I am willing to accept concept only "if" one cites a university press published book that doubts the existence of Islamophobia or simply calls it a concept in the sense we are trying to use. It strikes me that it is like AhmadiNejad's calling holocaust a myth. It is “not” based on facts. --Reza1 03:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that calling it a "concept" casts doubt on it. Racism is a concept and clearly exists in some form, though people will argue about the details. The reason I prefer "concept" to "phenomenon" is that no one can say it's an "alleged concept," because that makes no sense (not that that will necessarily stop certain people), whereas people will be adding "alleged" to "phenomenon" for the next thousand years. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"Concept" is fine with me. --Reza1 05:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to insert words like "concept" or "phenomenon" before the definition. I'd keep it simple and say "Islamophobia is a fear of Islam which takes the form of prejudice against Muslims". I'd then have a full stop before going into more detail, to avoid a tautological or over-elaborate opening sentence.qp10qp 11:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Should we compare this to Anti-Semitism? If you look at their definition, its hatred of the people, and/or of the religion itself. That seems to parallel here.

First, please sign your comments with "~~~~". Further, any specific definition still needs to come from a reliable source, and seeking parallels from another wiki article amounts to relying on Wikipedia as a source for itself - which it shouldn't do. Nysin 02:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia became the only form of prejudice to which the middle class will admit

There's nothing wrong with including the opinions of journalists, but this one isn't countered in the article and therefore sounds as if it is supposed to be a fact. I've come across hardly anyone, middle-class or not, who admits to Islamophobia (the exceptions are the occasional git in the pub or at work). The term "middle-class" is in itself questionable, because here it equates the middle-classes with respectability (I come from a respectable working-class background). Of course, this isn't to say that just because people don't admit to Islamophobia that they might not exhibit it (I've quite often come across the formula "I'm not racist/Islamophobic but . . ."). In my opinion, the only form of prejudice to which the British middle-class will admit is against the Germans, and then only when it comes to football and bagging places next to the swimming pool on holiday.qp10qp 11:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Err, no, the reason why the Guardian will always speak of the Middle Class is because that is their targeted audience. It has nothing to do with respectability. "Islamophobia became the only form of prejudice to which the middle class will admit" = Too many of our readers appear islamophobic. This is then personalised as is Seabrooks style. --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If it has nothing to do with respectability, why does the quote say: "Islamophobia is the half-open door through which it makes its triumphal re-entry into respectable society"? By the way, do you agree that Islamophobia has become the only prejudice to which the middle class will admit? qp10qp 10:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Restoration of typos, spelling mistakes etc.

I was disappointed to see that the mistakes I removed yesterday (the edit took me all of the England v Andorra match and, yes, it was more exciting) have been restored. What good does it do to restore mistakes like “publisers”, “descrimination”, and “there was also plans”? They do the article a disservice.

Those of my edits affecting actual content, I noted on the edit summary (see comment about one of them above). My theory is that someone noticed my removal of the Kenan Malik quote from the opening section, thought “this editor is an idiot”, and binned my whole edit on that account. But I had noticed Malik quoted saying much the same thing further down the article and that one phrase was almost identical. qp10qp 14:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Sweden poll

It's hard to tell from the poll coverage, for example, whether it's generic anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-Muslim in particular. For Wikipedia to assume one or the other is original research at best. Nysin 20:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it says "immigration from Muslim countries" so it's certainly not a generic anti-immigration sentiment. The top of the article says (in translation) "Twice as many old as young fell that Muslims threaten the Swedish culture". // Liftarn

It doesn't identify the source of that sentiment though: is it the immigration (perhaps from non-Scandinavian or non-West-European) countries "threatens Swedish culture" or that Muslims (who incindentally have been immigrating) "threatens Swedish culture", some combination, or something else entirely? The first seems pretty plausible, and (though I can't read the Swedish article you linked) the Wikipedia article text certainly doesn't disambiguate. Nysin 09:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

In Sweden Islam grows mainly due to immigration so the two are linked. In the article it says "Twice as many old as young fell that Muslims threaten the Swedish culture". Note that it doesn't say "immigrants" or "Muslim immigrants", but "Muslims". // Liftarn 10:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Then the Wikipedia article should reflect that. Nysin 11:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I have now rephrased the statement. // Liftarn¨

You have? Unless I'm blind, [25] makes them look word-for-word identical. Nysin 13:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It was changed from "immigration from Muslim countries" to "Muslim immigration". That shoudl clear things up. // Liftarn

Sort of. It leaves the basic question I opened this section over open: is it the immigrants or the Islam, or some combination? From your description, it seems that the article does clear this up, but that your rephased wiki article text doesn't. Nysin 14:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions for how to phrase it? // Liftarn

"In 2006, a survey of Swedes by Demoskop, reported in Dagens Nyheter, shows that 33% of over-65s think that Muslims threaten Swedish culture; 15% of those between 15 and 27 answered yes to the same question." for example. Nysin 15:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, but then you lose some information. // Liftarn

Given that such information is tangential to this article, what about wikilinking to Islam in Sweden, which already states

The faith arrived relatively late to the country primarily through immigration from Muslim countries (such as Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Somalia) in the late 20th century. Most Muslims in Sweden are either immigrants or descendants of those immigrants.

? Nysin 18:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Make it so. // Liftarn

Who is Jehanzeb Hasan?

I think he makes a good point with 'Osamaism' but is he somebody's boyfriend or what? Mrdthree 06:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Yes, he makes a good point; but as an obscure research assistant, I'm surprised he has a whole section and even a photograph to himself. A couple of lines from him would do the job. qp10qp 10:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a good argument and I don't think we could reduce it to a couple of lines. There's a photograph because it's freely licensed and it's good to have images of sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The article does suffer from elephantiasis, though. It works by accretion rather than distillation: in other words, the same points are made over and over again. And examples of polls, of people being removed from planes, or whatever, are collected rather than summed up. The reason for this is that the article seeks to prove the existence of Islamophobia. It doesn't need to—so long as the essentials of that debate are recorded.qp10qp 11:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I approximately agree with this, though with the caveat that for it not to need to prove the existence of Islamophobia, it has to actually find sources claiming Islamophobia, which some of the newer additions are weaker on. The current tactic of finding vaguely stated sentiments somewhat less than friendly to Islam and relying on preponderance doesn't work anymore under those conditions. Nysin 12:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the reason it doesn't have to prove that Islamophobia exists lies beyond the article itself, in the fact that the word has considerable currency. The quality of the article depends on different criteria.qp10qp 13:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Acts attributed to Islamophobia

Either deleate this section or make it into a seperate page, to be honest any anti-Muslim act could be catagarised as Islamophobic and to choose a few specific examples, some of which are not very significant, is NPOV. Either deleat or make into a proper organised page. --Boris Johnson VC 15:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

One problem with "any anti-Muslim act ..." is that minimally, the reliable source must state that the act was a result of the Muslim affiliation or Islam of the target, rather than some other cause (which doesn't have to be specified - "the editors involved can't prove it was some other cause, so it must be Islamophobia" doesn't work), and many of the sources from which various editors have tried to claim Islamophobia merely state a confluence of an unfortunate act and a Muslim target. Requiring a statement of Islamophobia avoids this.

More generally, a couple of comments in Talk:Islamophobia#Who_is_Jehanzeb_Hasan.3F make what appears to be a similar suggestion to yours. Nysin 16:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Misc issues

• the intro is way too long.
• the article missleadingly conflates racism & islamophobia. For example, the BBC bit talks about family names which are more corrolated with race, not religion. And the BBC poll does not even try to compare with racism facing other groups.
• And I fail to believe any of these polls are the best people can find. I'm suspect that real academica have looked at this using better methods (such as comparing polls before & after the London bombings, or compairiing polls as people slowely forget about the bombings, etc.).

JeffBurdges 11:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Czech Republic

The section on the Czech Republic just added cites various claims from the linked article, few, if any, of which seem clear Islamophobia. Desiring a ban on Mosque building (in what context? with state funds? By zoning? In general, regardless of means?) is debatable, though dubious-seeming.

The others are even worse: for "a threat of war ..." to be plausible without "prejudice or demonization of Muslims" merely requires that one belive that "Western and Muslim civilisations" exist. I've seen no particular claim Western civilizations don't exist, so the question is whether Muslim civilizations do. One can, in particular, claim they do, and that in some sense there might be a "war" conducted by a civilization, without claiming that either Islam or all Muslims form a monolithic, unchanging entity unresponsive to external cultural forces (per Runnymede), as for such a war to be attributable to a civilization (again, if one supports that there is a Muslim civilization) does not agreement of every person within that civilization (if being attributable's to have any practical meaning, at least). Of course, war often entails dehumanization of opponents and the like, in which case it seems like this conflict of civilizations theory does risk causing something more clearly identifiable as Islamophobia, but to infer such a Wikipedia article should not do, per NOR.

Then, does "Muslim civilization" exist? Many reliable sources, for example, [26], indicate that it does. I contest, therefore, that the 55% number indicates Czech Islamophobia.

What does "29 percent of Czechs consider Islam a sect" mean exactly? In particular, what is a sect? Is it a bad thing to be a sect? Christianity has sects, and as far as I can tell, it's not really prejorative term in that context, but people will differ on this point. Mostly, without making further (cited/supported, but not too many, or else it becomes an OR argument in itself) claims, this is far too murky and unclear a point on which to hinge a claim of "Islamphobia".

"11 percent are of the view that Buddha or Abraham respectively are the founders of Islam." This just seems, in the case of Buddha, to be ignorance (but not fear of any sort), and in the second case, one could argue, I guess, for Abraham, insofar as he's the mythical founder of the line of religions which includes Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, but a more useful distinction does attribute Islam to Muhammad; therefore, I'd call this statement essentially ignorance rather than fear or hostility, and not Islamophobia.

Virtually the entire Czech paragraph's a model of how, when leaving the standard of explicit mentions of "Islamophobia", one risks some rather dicey inferences that probably violate NOR in what is the #1 Google result for "Islamophobia". Nysin 17:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Back to your old habits, Irishpunktom? (Why did you restore this section with nary a comment?) Nysin 18:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

{{totallydisputed}}::why

1. Definition of islamophobia is not agreed upon; absent from Webster and other important dictionaries => factual inaccurate
2. First paragraph is badly written: it should summarize the rest of the article, it has some talking non-notable heads instead
3. Lots of weasel language => NPOV

To name just a few.

Is there any definition of Islamophobia that you can source whhich does not correspond to the one provided? --Irishpunktom\^talk 21:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

e.g.

1. 1. fear or dislike of Muslims or Islamic culture || www.blifaloo.com/info/phobias.php
   2. prejudice against Muslims; "Muslim intellectuals are afraid of growing Islamophobia in the West" || wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
   3. Islamophobia is a contemporary neologism defined as prejudice against Islam and Muslims. ||

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia

Source: Google.

It's not enough to claim the article is 'disputed' and then place a tag. Engage editors in a discussion first. What can be done to fix the problem as you see it? Can there be a compromise? You must first demonstrate a willingness to discuss why you feel the article lacks credibility before going ahead and placing such a tag. ImKidding 05:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

In order to fix the problem, the problems mentioned should be addressed. As long as this is not the case, the article is disputed hogwash.

1. Definition of islamophobia is not agreed upon; absent from Webster and other important dictionaries => factual inaccurate
2. First paragraph is badly written: it should summarize the rest of the article, it has some talking non-notable heads instead
3. Lots of weasel language => NPOV

Ok.. details here please? Weasel language? What weasal language, and how does it violate POV? Again, is there a Definition of islamophobia you can find which disagrees with the one stated? Kofi Annan is not non-natable, and those mentioned in the opneing have those same opinions and reasons dealt with later. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

OK you say ==> totallydisputed.

1 - not addressed

2 - i was talking about rudiger, schwarz which are nobodies.

3 - too much crap to mention, e.g. Runnymede Trust is not a think tank but a lobby group.

You don't need any fancy definitions or long reports to see Islamophobia. Turn on the news and see the president of America calling muslims "islamofascists", go into Christian chat rooms and ask what they think of Muslims, a few will say they are ok, the rest will tell you they are the anti-christ and are "evil". Let's face it, after 9/11 there has been a huge rise in anti-islamic and anti-Middle-Eastern sentiment due to the lack of proper coverage in the media, and the painting of all Middle-Easterners/Muslims as somehow related to Al-Qaida (which was a group the U.S government actually funded during the Cold War to fight the Soviets). I hate people who come out and ask for extensive proof and documentation of things they can see right before their eyes. Would you ask for proof and documentation and upon not recieiving it, bar all logic and common sense in the hope of denying a known fact? If so, I feel bad for you and anyone else who follows your way of thinking Haramzadi 17:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You haven't shown how to avoid NOR with such allegations with those tactics (I'm otherwise ignoring such loaded language as "the hope of denying a known fact", which regardless of whether said claims are factual, is unjustifiably pejorative in this context). Wikipedia cannot include anecdotes about Christian chat rooms and should not (though it appears some editors want to lower this standard) include things such as "islamofascism" without finding a reliable source to claim it amounts to Islamophobia (shouldn't be difficult, I'd think). Nysin 07:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Quoting anti-Muslim personalities

Shouldn't we add a collection of Islamophobic and anti-Muslim quotes to this article? Or would this be in violation of the POV and OR policies? I'm just asking...--Inahet 06:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

That sounds more lika a job for Wikiquote. // Liftarn

No, it sounds like original research, but anyway I guess that is not really a concern for the dawah editors around here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.20.149 (talk)

It would be original research to look up articles or comments and make your own judgements as to whether that content is islamophobic. It would be perfectly correct to add information from articles that note such occurances though. If the BBC has an article that states some british Muslim group found Jack Straw's position on the veil to be Islamophobic, THAT would be perfectly okay to quote and use as a reference. ImKidding 05:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, probably not NPOV. Islamophobia is an extremely controversial term, and the targets of the ad hominem would not style themselves as such in most cases. Lord Patrick 09:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Now, can someone take a look at this section: Arabs and anti-Semitism#Quotes and the discussion (if you can call it that) regarding this section here. Thanks. --Inahet 19:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You can't defend your position here, and now we have to listen to you whining about how unfair your dawah agenda is threated in other articles.. Ridicules!.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.20.149 (talk)

Is any Islamic criticism painted "Islamophobic"?

When does criticism become a phobia? Is there a technical definition out there, and should it be included in this article?

Islam appears to have lots of issues in the very heart of the religion (as I have found with my research indepth), and results in an excuse for extremist behavior among some individuals of that faith. The majority of Muslims are most definitely fine upstanding people. Many might not be aware of questionable activities done in the name of Islam, right from nearly the very beginning, or simply choose not to believe anything brought up relating to such (debates on what is fact and fiction is constantly ongoing). The religion itself, after seeing quotes from it, do have serious problems, but of course, even the Old Testament (bought by Jewish, and by Christians [although Christians weakened it with a possibly more tolerant New Testament]) endorsed the occassional use of genocide. With such extreme texts, even if people consider the Old Testament extreme, there is such low Jewish numbers of people around the world (and only one dominated country, which in itself is a democracy), that there was not a lot of possibility for taking things extreme. Islam, in contrast, has huge numbers (of members world-wide), and dominates many countries, and does have a vocal minority of members calling for more dominations. With some questionable ethics at the heart of what some view as the divine ideal, it could be a valid cause of concern amongst some people. Nonprof. Frinkus 22:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the term 'islamophobia' is more a political term than anything else. There really ought to be a 'anti-islamic sentiments' (or something of that order) article with islamophobia as a fringe article. --Zero g 22:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as how Israel jumps down anyones throat for criticizing their policies and calls them "Anti-Semitic" the minute you disagree with the Zionist philosophy and Zionist foriegn policies, I don't see anything wrong about calling out islamophobic individuals, and theres ALOT of them out there. Haramzadi 17:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

What do Israel's putative actions have to do with this article? Nysin 07:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing--Sefringle 01:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

How old are some of these cites?

I'm finding alot of them which are down, how long ago has it been since the list of cites has been checked? Homestarmy 05:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I looked at about the first quarter of them and those all seem fine... Homestarmy 05:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing {{totallydisputed}} tag

The person who put the tag on the article lists some reasons that I find false, so I am removing the tag. Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 17:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)