Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:31, 7 July 2006

This article survived two votes for deletion. An archived record of these debates can be found here and here.

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

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\ 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\ 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\ 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\ 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 _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\ 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\ 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\ 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\ 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. Misplaced Pages, 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 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 Misplaced Pages articles did go so far as to say that it's not a race, I'm not wild about the idea of Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages guidelines in effect support not actually using the "islamophobia" term when editing on Misplaced Pages: Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages would be a example of Islamophobia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?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\ 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\ 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 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.

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

and 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 , 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 Misplaced Pages 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\ 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\ 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)

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. Karl Meier is the one who made that change. (→Netscott) 02:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)