Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:45, 5 July 2005

Older talk is archived at Talk:Islamophobia/archive, Talk:Islamophobia/archive2 and Talk:Islamophobia/archive3

Systematic Misplaced Pages Bias

Why was this obviously POV term kept, while Islamophilia, Arab dictatorships, Ameriphobia and others were deleted? It seems like anything that supports terrorism, conspiracy theories or general anti-US hatemongering is overwhelmingly favored by many of the Lefty Wiki college kids. Anything critical of genocidal racist anti-US extremism is immediately put up for VfD by some helpful partison censor (this is always a selective process--deciding what gets VfD'ed). And of course, sheer numbers ensure that Lefty bias will always win these votes, epsecially when aided by Leftist admins who harrass other views. The result: extremely biased, fringe-oriented Wackopedia. Thus is the way of groupthink: The consensus inside the group can become so divorced from mainstream thought and rationality, especially when logical fallacies, bullying, and other irrational tactics are used to crush open argument. This article's existence is just another existence of how cravenly biased Wackopedia has become. Dragonlance 12:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Um. Well. "Islamophobia" is actually a term in wide usage, whereas "Ameriphobia" and "Islamophilia" are congruous neologisms you just made up. There's no reason to assert "Leftist" bias in this instance - it's simply a matter of good sense. (Is this the sort of "logical fallacies, bullying and other irrational tactics" you're talking about?) Graft 15:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Dragonlance,

Examining the VfD for those pages, I believe Ameriphobia and Islamophilia were deleted because they are a non-notable neologisms. Arab dictatorships was deleted because it was considered to be a POV magnet whose content would be usefully used in Arab states and individual country pages.

I know its frustrating when a page you created or support but there are specific (and not so specific) criteria for deleting articles. If you feel your POV is not properly credited you might find it more valuable to edit similar articles, such as Anti-American sentiment and Arab states.

Otherwise, making reference to the "genocidal racist anti-US extremism" of editors, or referring to fellow editors as "Lefty Wiki college kids" will not help do this and will only serve to antagonise and provoke. Apart from anything, your obvious contempt for education will do you no favors in the academic setting of Misplaced Pages. I'm also unclear what "logical fallacies" and "bullying" are stiffling open discourse on this page: I think open attempts to discuss the issue with other editors have been made, especially by myself. Quite the reverse, some of the nastier tactics used on this page are by those people opposed to the "lefty" perspective: see talk below.

Note: generally, new comments and sections on talk pages a placed at the bottom of the page. Axon 15:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Dragonlance. Sheer number of Islamist/Leftist/Pakistani editors and administrators harass anyone who attempt to bring about any NPOV to Misplaced Pages. 70.105.188.134 23:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Definition of Islamophobia

- Germen

Islamophobia is any fear and/or hatred of Islam, Muslims or Islamic culture which is not warranted by objective facts.

The starting sentence as it stands is incorrect and POV. The term as it is commonly used is defined as "prejudice against Muslims". It has nothing to do with "objective facts" and the above makes implicit the POV that fear and/or hatreed of Islam can be warranted by objective facts. I propose the following sentence instead:

Islamophobia is a contemporary neologism defined as prejudice against Islam and Muslims.

If someone disagrees I ask they supply references from reputable sources that contradict the above. Axon 11:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Of course, fear and/or hatred of Islam can be warranted by objective facts. It's an extreme POV that it cannot, and to assume that Islam does only good to civilization.

It would help the discussion and your credibility if you would get an account, log into Misplaced Pages and sign your posts. That said, you have not actually offered any reasons or evidence to contradict the statements made above, you have just made a blind assertion that it is false. I find the sentence is not self-evident and is POV and have explained my reasoning above. Please explain yours. Axon 17:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Of course, fear and/or hatred of Islam can be warranted by objective facts. It's an extreme POV that it cannot, and to assume that Islam does only good to civilization.

1. Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.

WARRANTED BY FACTS. Islam requires strictly that rules such as stoning to death not be changed.

4. Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism and engaged in a 'clash of civilisations'.

WARRANTED BY FACTS. Open your eyes and look around yourself. Differentiate between non-practising "muslims", and real muslims who follow the Qu'ran.

6. Criticisms made of the West by Islam are rejected out of hand.

WARRANTED BY FACTS, see 'Fear' in

"Muslims reaching the U.S. refuse to learn our language and take over our neighborhoods with their codes of dress and education. "

WARRANTED BY FACTS all over US and Europe. There are whole villages in Germany where they only know Turkish.

"They are strengthened demographically both by natural reproduction and by immigration, which reinforces their stubborn ethnic segregation."

HOW CAN YOU DENY THIS OBVIOUS FACT? What is the Muslim growth rate? In several countries, the formal Islamic religious heads openly encourage muslims to produce as many offspring as they can, so that they become demographically strong.

"Despite what they may say, Muslims are and have always been on a mission to conquer and kill infidels. They’ve been doing it for centuries and will continue until we’re all dead, or they’re all dead, or the world ends, whichever comes first. "

NOT ONLY SUPPORTED BY HISTORY, BUT ALSO PROUDLY CLAIMED (ATLEAST WHEN NOT ON RECORDS) BY MOST MUSLIMS.

Please tone down the shouting: apart from being incivil it does your argument no favors. The above is just a bunch of unreferenced quotes that demonstrate a particular opinion and do not represent fact: it is not self-evident fact that fear and/or hatred of Muslims can be rational or objective. It is your POV and it is contradicted by the alternative position that fear and/or hatred of anyone, nevermind Muslims, is irrational. That aside, you are side-stepping the basic thrust of my original remark: does anyone have any reputable sources or references that contradict my definition of islamophobia? Axon 17:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No there is no definition of Islamophobia in any reputable source, so there are no references that contradict yours. Cook up whatever you want.

I have provided two references, one from a reputable online dictionary of which I doubt there is anything "cooked" about it. Is there any reason you doubt the above? If you have a contradictory definition please a reference here. Misplaced Pages is built on reference and citation (see Cite your sources). Again, if you doubt the definition please profer an alternative one with suitable citations. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you base your objection on. Axon 18:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the disputed content in the introductionary paragraph to a special subheading "Proponents". Hope this will end the edit wars and startign a more NPOV version of this article. --Germen 15:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see no attempt made on this talk page to discuss your changes and your erasing of the "disputed" definition of islamophobia. I see no reason nor evidence to dispute the definition of islamophobia as above or within the article and the discussion of the entymology of the word is not appropriate for the introduction. Again, please cite your sources. Axon 16:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Editing controversy of Yuber, Axon and Mustafaa vs Germen

OK, here is a text: Your, Mustafaa's and Yuber's version:

Islamophobia is fear and/or hatred of Islam, Muslims or Islamic culture. (1)
Islamophobia encompasses the belief that Islam promotes religious
fanaticism, violent tendencies towards non-Muslims, terrorism and rejects
concepts such as equality, tolerance, democracy and human rights. It is
viewed as a (2)  new form of racial prejudice whereby Muslims, an
ethno-religious group, not a race, (3) are nevertheless constructed as a
race. A set of negative assumptions are made of the entire group to the
detriment of members of that group. (4) How new it is, in the historic light
of The Crusades, is debatable and could be as old as the 11th or even 8th
Century AD. 
During the 1990s some sociologists and cultural analysts hypothesized that
there was a shift in forms of prejudice from ones based on skin colour to
ones based on notions of cultural superiority and otherness 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/Islamophobia#endnote_Seabrook)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/Islamophobia#endnote_Rudiger).
Others, however, disagree, and hold that modern forms of prejudice are not
substantially different from similar forms of prejudice that have existed in
many other places and times.

Bias in bold. 1: Original research. The accepted Webster definition is:

islamophobia 

n : prejudice against Muslims; "Muslim intellectuals are afraid of growing
Islamophobia in the West" 
 According to this regular definition each negative prejudice about islam is islamophobia. 

2. "It is viewed" by who? No authors, sources mentioned. POV, .

3. Constructed as a race by who? People who are considered to be "islamophobes", such as Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer, direct their critic at islamic ideology and thinking patterns, not at muslims as a group. Some Muslims themselves construct a Muslim "race", in accordance to the Sunnah and the sahih hadith: they consider there to be is only one nationality: the Ummah, which transcends current nationality. 4. The Crusades are represented here as a manifestation of islamophobia, which is original research and not in accordance to historic information. The main motivation for the Crusades was to re-enable pilgrimage and to recapture Christian holy places which were conquered by Muslims some five (!) centuries earlier. When the Crusades were islamophobia indeed, the logical course of action would have been an expedition to Mecca in order to destroy the Kaäba.

I have cited my sources. So please cooperate in making this article more NPOV --Germen 09:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Germen, I see, once again, after getting blocked after the last edit war, you are carrying out large scale modifications to the article without even bothering to discuss them properly on this talk page first. Since you are new to Misplaced Pages I will attempt to explain some of the rules and regulations that ensure the smooth running of editing on controversial topics:

• Whilst it is true that Misplaced Pages encourages you to Be Bold it also encourages you to don't be reckless.
• all non-trivial edits (such as your increasingly elaborate and radical alterations) should not be marked as Minor edits.
• Do not make lots of edits all at the same time because these will just end up getting reverted. Editors don't have the time to go through lots of changes and review and will rather revert all an editor's changes if they see POV in one or two changes.

That is not true, I did discuss these edits on the talk page as you have seen. In contrary to this, your, Mustafaa's, Yubers reverts were not motivated--Germen 10:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree: you did not discuss many of the last few changes you have made (for example, in the history section). If you have explained these changes please highlight where you have explained them on this talk page. You certainly have not explained your changes before and we were all perfectly within our rights to reverts your unexplaind, controversial and uncommented changes. Please read the policy guidelines I have linked to. You should also indent your responses and there is absolutely no need to bold your remarks. Axon 11:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My changes have been commented i.e. here, so what you say is not according to fact. Indentation OK. I see a need, be bold :)--Germen 12:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, they have not, germen. You only discussed (but did not wait for a reply) to altering the definition of islamophobia. Your other changes are only now being discussed because I am making the attempt to do so. You are certainly not putting appropriate comments on your edits and you are still marking major changes as minor! Please desist or you edits will be reverted. Axon 13:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Do not change the order of the comments on the talk page: most editors check the bottom of the page first rather than the start so if you want to give precedence to a dicussion it is advisable to keep it at the bottom of the page where the most current discussion is ongoing.

Not logical. People start to read at the top. --Germen 10:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It may not seem logical to you, but nevertheless, this is how things should be done for clarity on Misplaced Pages. Axon 11:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Finally, ensure all you remarks are properly signed on the talk page here.

OK--Germen 10:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To summarise my opinion of your edits:

• Again, this change should never have been marked as a minor edit. You have been warned about marking your edits as minor on numerous occasions so you really should know better. What is more, you have redefined islamophobia without discussion on this page, added some highly controversial remarks about who defines islamophobia how (without citing your sources), placed controversial text in the introduction and used weasel words to basically give precedence to the opinions of those who dismiss islamophobia and more properly belong in the criticism section of this article.

This accusations have no base. The statements in the first paragraph were highly controversial and I have marked them as such. There is no general agreement on this statements, while the author states it as such. Of course I will make this clear. This is not weasel wording, is is unmasking bias. --Germen 10:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You have to be clearer than this: what statements are you referring to here?Axon 11:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See my comments before, on top of (now) section 1.1 where I discuss the bias of the introduction. --Germen 12:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Inexplicable: you do not place comments within an article.

At least you do read the article. My points in the Talk Page gets unaddressed. --Germen 10:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Again, your lack of use of the talk page does you no favors: you claim your comments are ignored but I have replyed to most if not all your remarks so I don't credit this claim much. Please remove the comments: it is better to copy and paste the offending lines from the article into the talk page and remark on them there. Axon 11:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As everyone can read, I motivated all additions.

• There is no need to attribute the definition here: simply describe the definition of islamophobia without attempting to narrow the scope of it's validity.
•  :::If there is no agreement on the exact definition of 'islamophobia' it is NPOV to describe this disagreement. --Germen 10:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see no evidence over the defintion, just disagreement over whether it exists and who it can be applied to. Axon 11:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not believe there is any disargeement over the defitinition of islamophobia. If you have alternative definitions from reputable sources, again (and again and again) I ask you to publish them here, otherwise we must consider the term islamophobia as it is commonly defined. Axon 11:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article is about islamophobia, not about sharia law and Islamic opinion of human rights. See also belongs at the bottom of the article as well.

As you admitted, there exist different definitions, so there exist different opinions about the meaning of islamophobia as well. That is not a belief, that is a fact.--Germen 12:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I admitted no such thing: there is, AFAIK, only one set definition of islamophobia and it quite clearly means prejudice against muslims and islam. In fact, quite clearly I made an open call for others to cite sources that dispute my definition and, as yet, no one has done so. Again, I reiterate: I see no evidence of dispute over the defintion, just disagreement over whether it exists and who it can be applied to. Axon 13:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• "Islamic source materials such as Qur'an and Hadith promote religious fanaticism, violent tendencies towards non-Muslims, terrorism and rejects concepts such as equality, tolerance, democracy and human rights or not, is not settled, even not between Muslims themselves." This paragraph doesn't even attempt to be NPOV: there is obvious disagreement of the above. This section should be reverted.

Islamophilia is defined as negative prejudices against Islam or Muslims. So it is logical to find out whether a negative statement about islam is true, hence a prejudice. As the level of knowledge and level of practice of islam varies for every Muslim it is the most logical to refer to the islamic source material, e.g. Qur'an and Sunnah, to find out whether a claim is prejudice. --Germen 10:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Islamophobia is defined as prejudice against Islam and Muslims (the negative is implicit and is not common to any of the definitions I have seen). What is more, the idea that a negative claim about Islam is true or not is inherently POV: you cannot assert that, according to so and so paragraph of the Koran, Islam is for killing small kittens, for example... it is a statement that will obviously be disputed. Again, please read NPOV. This content should be moved the criticism section at the bottom of the page. Axon 11:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Muslims cite Qur'an and Hadith as a basis for their opinions on Islam. Besides, to consider the Qur'an as the literal word of God and following the example of Prophet Muhammad as described in the Hadith is central to Islamic doctrine. So there is not a dispute, unless people don't understand the basics of islam. In that case, please abstain from editing this page. --Germen 12:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am quite aware of how Muslims regard the Koran and their holy texts. You admonishment that I "abstain from editing this page" are grossly out of order and will be ignored. That aside, you cannot claim that Islam stands for one thing as NPOV when there is obvious disagreement over it, and without even bothering to cite sources. What you are talking about here is opinion that should be referenced in the criticism section of this document, not fact or NPOV. Please read NPOV. Axon 13:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Misleading quote. The complete sentence is: Other authors, such as Robert Spencer and Ibn Warraq dismiss this point of view as one-sided, as the issue whether Islamic source materials such as Qur'an and Hadith promote religious fanaticism, violent tendencies towards non-Muslims, terrorism and rejects concepts such as equality, tolerance, democracy and human rights or not, is not settled, even not between Muslims themselves.--Germen 10:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was referring to that particular edit specifically, and not the overall history (the sentence now reads as above). This sentence belogns in the criticism section at the bottom of the page. Axon 11:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Disputed, biased opinions should be presented as such, as is the case in any journalistically sound or encyclopaedic article. --Germen 12:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Only if there is actually a dispute. Imagined disputes invented by editors so as to push their own POV are to be ignored unless evidence from a reputable source exists to back them up. That aside, it is clearly wikipedia policy that a concept should be considered on its own merits and criticism of concepts should be kept in the criticism section. Axon 13:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Again, what is the relevance, other than a POV attempt to discredit the term islamophobia, is the inclusion of the line "Webster Dictionary has no entry for this word as yet." Again, more weasel words.POV statements should be marked as such.

Again, it is no weasel wording, this is making an article NPOV.--Germen 10:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please read weasel words - this sentence has now been deleted anyhow. Axon 11:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please read 'weasel wording' yourself. You confuse NPOV with weasel wording. --Germen 12:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't think I do. Axon 13:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• "Often also negative prejudice against islam or Islamic culture is included in the definition." Here you start to inexplicably (evidence?) diverge the definition of islamophobia into two parts. It is defiend as prejudice against Muslims on Wordnet, but it is also defined as a general prejudice against Islam. There is no contradiction between these two definitions and one might argue that one naturally leads to the other.

The definitions are different on their scope. Of course there is an objective difference between a scope of anti-Muslim only and a scope of anti-Muslim, anti-islam and anti-islamic culture. Stating this difference is natural.--Germen 10:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is it? Provide evidence please. It seems to me the defining quality of a Muslim is that he/she practices Islam. Hence, criticism levelled at all Muslims would indeed seem to be a criticism of Islam and vice versa. Axon 11:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not understand this point, Muslim is something different than Islam. Muslim is an adherent of islam, islam is a religion. So criticizing them is criticizing different things. If you cannot understand the difference, please check your dictionary.

Your patronising tones does your argument no favors here. If you actually read what I wrote above you would see my response to your this very point. To reiterate: criticism levelled at all Muslims would indeed seem to be a criticism of Islam and vice versa. Axon 13:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• More uncited changes that seem like POV to me.

That's your POV.--Germen 10:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You do not seem to be making very much attempt to discuss anything, here Germen: these changes seem like POV to me and it is up to you to explain them here. Simply remarking "that's your POV" is no explanation I can grasp. Axon 11:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neither do you seem to make very much attempt to discuss them Axon. You state your POV, I state mine. OK, if you liek this game than do it so.--Germen 12:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I have not stated my POV: I have questioned your edits and raised several points. However, in response you simply seem to reiterate your own opinion as if it were self-evident fact without providing evidence of discussing it. Axon 13:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• note you realise your mistake and remove the sentence about Webster's dictionary.

Of course, I am human and I make mistakes. When I realise I made one, I correct it. That's the idea of Wiki. --Germen 10:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, me too :) Axon 11:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So, in the end you have deleted much legitimate and cited content from the introduction to this article and added two paragraphs of uncited POV. I'm sorely tempted to revert your changes and would not be surprised if others do too but, for the sake of peace and because you may not be aware of the above, I await your remarks to the above and look to discuss your changes. Axon 09:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I removed the reference to the Crusades because they themselves were not a cause for islamophobia. This is logically nonsense. It only could be argued that the Crusades were a consequence of islamophobia. A logical explanation of islamophobia in the Middle Ages are the armed conflicts and islamic invasions of christian territories. So I stated those. --Germen 10:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I would argue that many people have made the comparison between the crusades and the current climate of islamophobia so you probably should not have deleted this section. You certainly should have discussed it first. Axon 11:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They compared apples with pears. The Crusades were a consequence of a "climate of islamophobia", which in turn was caused by Papal proclamations, rumors of islamic conquests and wars with islamic armies. Does it make sense to include inappropriate comparisons?

That they are comparable as apples is to pears is your opinion: others have made the comparison and they obviously disagree. Personal incredulity is irrelevant here. Axon 13:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, I accidently reverted your changes to the talk page here when I responded to your comments. You might want to add them back into the above. Axon 11:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, let it be :)

Votes for deletion debate

This article has been kept following this VFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i'm sad to see it was rejected. this article is doomed to perpetual POV based on its very nature. J. Parker Stone 07:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Germen's Reverts

To Germen: Despite my attempts to compromise and discuss edits with you I see you are now reverting my edits without even bothering to go through the charde of attempting to discuss them with me. The sentence defining Islamophobia you are adding is not only POV but is weasel words: that is, by attributing the definition to "several authors" you are clearly trying to make implicit that the opinion may only be held by a minority. What is more, you have yet, despite my constant requests, made clear any sources that contradict this definition.

I also note that you have moved criticism from the criticism section back into the introduction despite the fact I and others have clearly noted above that criticism should belong in that section.

I have now reported you for your third breach of the 3RR in almost as many days. Axon 17:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I admire your tactics brother. We muslims must unite to defeat the kuffaar. User:130.89.6.66

I do find it hilarious that you compare me to a Jihadist above: checking my page you would see that I'm actually gay. I don't oppose your changes because I'm a fundamentalist Islamist as you suggest above... I oppose them because they are POV. This is the nature of the NPOV policy - to support or oppose edits not because I have some personal bias to do so but because it is the right thing to do. You might do well to heed this. Axon 08:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

The subject is quite controversial as is manifest from all reversions. Germen and Axon seem not to be able to reach a conclusion and descend to a childish level. I suggest some third party investigates the claims of both and mediates. User:130.89.6.66

Germen we all know the anon IP is you. It traces to the same University.Yuber 18:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, it would seem as though the IP address is Germen posting although we cannot know for sure so I would not like to make judgement. I ask Germen to confirm if the IP above is his/hers and, if so, explain his/her actions. Otherwise, we should at least attempt to give Germen the benefit of the doubt.

I dispute the accusation that I am acting childishly: as can be seen above and in the edit history of the article, I have made numerous attempts to discuss and compromise on Germen's edits. This were met with automatic reversions of my own edits. Germen's inability to discuss properly and compromise his/her own edits make any sort of progress difficult. To be fair, some of Yuber's own actions may have also been unwarranted.

I have listed this page on RfC#Politics in order to get ourselves out of this deadlock. I suggest we create a sub-page and start editing that in the meantime as a means of trying to achieve some sort of compromise. This page will be listed at Talk:Islamophobia/Draft. Axon 09:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Draft

I have created a draft version of this document so that we can all work on it to get an agreed version before the page protection expires so as to avoid edit wars. In particular, we should focus on the following issues: Axon

Introduction

The introduction is obviously the most contentious issue: what belongs here and what doesn't? Axon 10:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. The edit war concentrates on the introduction. I suggest to stick to the dictionary definition of 'islamophobia', which is clear and NPOV and move all POV content, such as the definitions of people like Said and the leftist Runnymede Trust to sections 'proponents' and 'critics'.

Islamophobia encompasses the belief that Islam promotes religious fanaticism, violent tendencies towards non-Muslims, terrorism and rejects concepts such as equality, tolerance, democracy and human rights. POV. 1. Empty word. What is religious fanatism? Every religion promotes adherence to the doctrines of the faith. 2. Islamic sources, e.g. Quran e.g. Surah At-Taubah, Hadith of Bukhari, Muslim etc contain orders to subjugate and kill non-Muslims. All scholars agree on this, there is only difference in POV on its scope. 3. Define terrorism. When terrorism is defined like 'violent actions towards non-combatants in order to strike fear in them in order to achieve political goals', jihad practice as described in the Qur'an and Sunnah fits the bill. 4. The Quran, Sunnah and, therefore, Shari'ah discriminates between men and women, Muslim and non-Muslim, idolator vs. "People of the Book". 5. Define tolerance. According to two madhdhabs, only people of the book can live as subjugated, 'protected', dhimmi's and continue practicing their religion under Muslim rule. According to the Shafi, polytheists as well can live as dhimmi's, while the austere Hanbali school doesn't recognize dhimmi's. 6. The Qur'an contains an injunction to rule by Allah's laws only, not by human law, otherwise, 'you will be among the losers'. 7. Islamic human rights are different from the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Exactly because of that reason, islamic countries have come with their own "Cairo Declaration".

It is seen as a new form of racial prejudice... With all due respect, this is weasel wording. Seen by whom? Many people see islamophobia as a consequence of violence by Muslims.

--Germen 1 July 2005 12:45 (UTC)

I see you are back, Germen. I hope we can all work together construcively and avoid some of the more unpleasant tactics we've seen here.

I hope this as well. Because I don't want to mobilize a group of supporters, I was forced to violate the 3RR rule in the past. --Germen 1 July 2005 16:40 (UTC)

You were forced to do no such thing: no-one held a gun to your head and made you revert the changes. If you wish to avoid the above impasse I ask you contribute to the discussion here constructively without recourse to calling out the muslims in the discussion and other such tactics. Axon 4 July 2005 10:36 (UTC)

A group of people tries to push their POV by misusing their number to revert again and again. In order to keep opinions balanced I was forced to revert more often than three times within 24 hours.

I think identifying the members of one group as Muslim is relevant to the discussion, because their POV is pro-Muslim and therefore biased. Muslims believe they get a kind of spiritual air miles, 'hasanat', to defend and whitewash their faith. --Germen 5 July 2005 11:31 (UTC)

Yet, you were warned about the 3RR. This is how Misplaced Pages works and, if you don't like it, I ask you either refrain from reverting or you move to another forum.

I think identifying Muslims is prejudiced and the essence of Islamophobia. On Misplaced Pages we are all equal and entitled to a fair say in the content of articles. Ones own biases and prejudices, including your own, are irrelevant to the discussion and are a show of bad faith. Axon 5 July 2005 11:42 (UTC)

I note you still maintain the defintion of islamophobia as it is defined by the Runnymede Trust et al is "disputed" but have yet to provide any alternative defintions with citations. This would be most helpful, otherwise we have no reason to believe the defintion is contested.

I think we already have an agreement: islamophobia = prejudice against islam and/or Muslims. This is an alternative, uncontested and clear definition of islamophobia.

In order to find out whether a certain negative POV about islam or Muslims is a prejudice, we must find out which is the objective truth. I will open a section in Talk especially about the Runnymede Trust definition where we will examine the claims. Agreed? --Germen 1 July 2005 16:40 (UTC)

No, because you have yet to demostrate the definition as provided by the Runnymede Trust is actually disputed by a non-significant minority at the very least (your own disagreement is not evidence of such). What is more, discovering the "objective truth" about Muslims is not what this article is about. If you wish to write about Muslims I ask you contribute to the Islam article. The "objective truth" about Muslims (such that it can exist over such a controversial subject) is irrelevant to writing an encyclopaedia article... we are not out to prove whether Islamophobia is justified or not (see WP:NOR). We are here to summarise existing knowledge in an encyclopaedic way. Axon 4 July 2005 10:36 (UTC)

Argumentum ad populum. I gave you the concise definition of islamophobia in reputed online dictionaries. The Runnymede Trust Definition violates this definition and is internally inconsistent as I proved.

The Runnymede Trust is a partisan, leftist organisation with the stated goal to promote a so-called "multicultural society". So this means both the source and the quality of the definition is disputed. QED. --Germen 5 July 2005 11:25 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that a lot of your points above are spurious. We have to accept some common ground (i.e. the definition of religious fanatacism) otherwise there would seem to be little discussion/ Again, you are really just re-stating your opinion as uncontested fact ("Islamic human rights are different", etc) without considering that we are attempting to discuss the definition of islamophobia, not whether that definition applies. Axon 1 July 2005 16:26 (UTC)

OK, we will concentrate on the definition of islamophobia first. --Germen 1 July 2005 16:40 (UTC)

Islamophobia and the Crusades

Germen removed a section in the original version on the crusades and how it relates to islamophobia. I think this should be added back to the article, but with citation. I propose a call for comments and references on this topic. Axon 10:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Crusades were wars. Christian pilgrims were attacked and they tried to defend themselves. Do you want to say that since Christians did not surrender lamely and tried to fight back, therefore they are prejudiced against Islam? I, for one, won't be surprised. 70.105.188.134 23:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Really, what source are you using? Your recent contributions indicate a highly anti-Islamic "source".--Anonymous editor 00:03, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

All contributions you've made till date to Misplaced Pages are biased and highly pro-Islamic (Islamophillic). But that's not the point. Read any trusted source on crusades. The wikipedia article would be a good starting point.

I look forward to finding these so-called "trusted" sources, perhaps they are other hindu extremist ones like you have used in the past to add biased information to articles. You are saying that Christian pilgrims tried to "defend" themselves and so genocide of civilian population was justified? Ridiculous. The christians were indeed prejudiced against Islam, thats why the Pope's call to war was so successful. The constant calls to war made zealous christians eager to go to the lands and "fight". Everyone knows it was fear of the Muslims in this case, especially Muslim expansion. Any credible source, even Christian ones will tell you that. Anyways I don't know why you are bringing this up when the article is already locked for disputes. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 05:36, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

This article is protected from editing "until disputes have been resolved on the discussion page." I don't know what are you saying about why this should not be brought up. Please read wikipedia policies. Locking does not mean that the locked version is endorsed by wikipedia. It was a good strategy to make the article correspond as closely to your POV as possible, and get it locked immediately. Yes, of course it was fear of Muslim expansion, as you said. But where exactly do you find irrationality or prejudice in that? What else could be have been expected? Christians welcoming Muslim invaders with open arms? As mentioned earlier, the wikipedia article on crusades provides fairly good elementary information about the reasons behind the crusades. Please read it. Additionally, you might want to read the causes of crusades section of the Encylopedia Britannica article on crusades. I dont't think I need to pin point at particular portions of these article. Tell me if I do. It is at best, an undefendable POV that the crusades represented Christian prejudices against Islam, or were a symptom of an irrational fear of Islam. 70.105.188.134 06:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Funny, the dispute was not mine. It was between Germen and other users. I just got here a day ago. Please get your facts straight before accusing me of having a "good strategy to get the article locked". Btw, "fear of Muslims" as you wrote = Islamophobia and there was prejudice against Muslims in the Christian world of the crusades, resulting in so many volunteers to the Pope's call to fight them. And the article you cited is not from the Encyclopedia Britannica. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 06:46, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. Only a few editors like you have claimed "fear of muslims = islamophobia", which has been debated even by the proponents of the term. I would go by the more established definition: "prejudice against Islam and Muslims." I didn't even say "fear of muslims". I said "fear of muslim expansion." What makes you think it was prejudice against Muslims that led Christians defend themselves and try to recover occupied territories including their holy cities? I am not surprised you are following double standards here too: While muslims were justified in invading the Byzantine empire, occupying Spain, destroying the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem and persecuting pilgrims, Christians were irrational in even fearing Muslim expansion into their territories. 70.105.188.134 07:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please read more on the crusades as you are clearly misinformed by what they were, or how many there were and why did they occur so many times in prolongated periods. I have no time to sit here and have you accuse me of "Double standards" when I didn't even really add/remove from the article. If you have a personal problem with Muslims, please deal with it rather then making extensive debates on talk pages. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 07:07, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

The article is from the eleventh edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, first published in 1911, and now in public domain. Your quick reply suggests you did not read any of these articles. 70.105.188.134 07:08, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your lack of knowledge says the same. Anyways, I don't really care to carry this any longer as there is no motive, beside your constant rants, quick false accusations, and lack of knowledge on the subject. I am sure the other editors here who know history will be happy enough to debate with you. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 07:11, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Another very typical behavior. When nothing else works, just say "you know nothing." Seriously, there's not point talking to you.

Readers, please read about the causes of crusades and be cautious of the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum. Articles such as this one are nurtured by sheer numbers of editors and administrators who want to use wikipedia as a platform to promote certain ideologies. 70.105.188.134 07:25, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you wish to give yourself some more credibility I ask that you register a user name and log into Misplaced Pages, familiarising yourself with our poliicies, in particular NPOV. Your comments above and the IP address you are editing (its history includes vandalism of a user's talk page) do not do your argument any favors. Previous experience has taught many of us to be wary of anonymous comments.

That aside, though the Arabs were by no means innocent of bloodshed, to characterise the crusades simply as the Christians "defending themselves" against hostile muslims is not accurate either. This is all irrelevant: many have compared the current islamophobic climate with the climate of the crusades and thus the point need be raised in the discussion of this article. How that is done depends much on how constructively you engage in discourse on this talk page. Axon 09:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are right that it is irrelevant. Even if it were true that the Christians were the agressors and entirely responsible for the wars, it does not mean Islamophobia. Nobody would claim that the wars between England and France imply any phobias although the terms Francophobia and Anglophobia do exist. Please cite trustable sources (which do not include quran.ca and khalifah.org)on who are these many people who have compared the "current islamophobic climate" with the climate of the crusades. Also, since this comparision does not amount to saying that crusades were a manifestation of Islamophobia, if you happen to have any authentic sources, I think still the article should contain exactly what you just said: "many have compared the current islamophobic climate with the climate of the crusades" and not something that implies that "the history of Islamophobia goes back to the crusades." I always include my IP (which identifies me uniquely.) Please refrain from changing the topic and resorting to personal slander. 70.105.188.134 17:51, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you read my starting remark you will see I started this discussion with an open call for citations and references on this topic.

I'm not making personal slanders... if that IP address marks you uniquely, then you have previously vandalised a user's page here, here and here. As we've seen, unpleasant activity from anon IPs have caused us other problems on this page. Axon 19:33, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why, then, even in the absence of any references, you are still adamant to keep this highly POV Christianity bashing speculation in the article? 70.105.188.134

I'm not adamant about anything, I'm just asking for a call of references for the inclusion of this content. If there are no references to source this material, I agree it should not be in the ariticle. Given time, though, I'm sure some references can be found to back this up.

BTW, do you have anything to say about your vandalising of user's pages above? Axon 19:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Normally it works this way: You first read about the topic, find a lot of references stating a particular position, and then you decide to include it in the article.

It does not work this way: You first write whatever you would love people to believe, let it stay as long as people don't object, and when people object, just keep it there and wait for an indefinite time wishing some references would spring up. This page is meant to discuss the article on Islamophobia. Please don't bring other issues here. 70.105.188.134 20:12, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've always wanted to ask: does bolding or capitalising your comments ever actually convince anyone of anything? It must do as so many editors (see above) seem to resort to it.

I wasn't aware there was a right and wrong way of calling for references for writing articles! Which Misplaced Pages policy or guideline are you referring to above?

That aside, a google test returns 3k+ hits for islamophobia and the Crusades (some of which are mirrors of this article) demonstrating the link has been made before by others before. An article in the New Statesman also seems to make reference to this link as well as the following paper/book: Constructing the Muslim Enemy Edited by Emran Qureshi and Michael A. Sells. Now, that's what I call a constructive contribution to the dialogue. Axon 28 June 2005 13:34 (UTC)

On "other issues": I don't see how the subject is seperate to this discussion. All three incidents seem related to editing on Islam-related pages, bear a stricking resemblence to bad-faith remarks made elsewhere on this talk page and do require some explanation to help build the trust and confidence that is the hallmark of cooperative Misplaced Pages editing.

With this in mind, I once again ask you to explain these edits to user pages. Were you responsible for these edits? If so, why did you do it and will you do it again? Can I expect my user page to be vandalised? Axon 28 June 2005 16:11 (UTC)

Interesting, your IP signs one of it's remarks here as deeptrivia. This would mean not only did you vandalise user pages but you also attempted to vote twice on the VfD for Islamophilia, once as 70.105.188.134 and again as Deeptrivia. You also appear to have attempted to similarly vote twice on the Vfd for Persecution of Muslims. Please explain? Are you and Deeptrivia the same person? Axon 28 June 2005 16:21 (UTC)

Whoa! After Axon's convincing demonstration that many people have linked Islamophobia with the Crusades, no doubt should be left. Following his footsteps, I found out that there are many other things that people have attributed to the crusades. I think the first step towards improving the factual accuracy of Misplaced Pages would be to mention crusades on all these pages:

• Rugby 108,000 + hits
• Television 729,000 + hits
• Internet 885,000 + hits
• Cloning 57,700 hits
• Lesbianism 7,700 hits
• Photography 182,000 hits
• Anti-semitism 95,000 hits
• Communism 170,000 hits
• Cybercrime 3500+ hits
• Organic farming 19,000 + hits
• atom bomb 50,000 + hits

and many more.

This was an eye-opener for me because I did not know the crusades were so important in the history. But the way, the articles you mentioned just says that Islam is mentioned in British textbooks only for its confrontation with the West during Crusades (the word is used only once in the article). Although that doesn't prove anything that you want to prove, the google test by itself is the most convincing proof of anything I've ever seen. 130.203.202.156 29 June 2005 00:31 (UTC)

Please register and login: anonymous user's are generally distrusted. To respond to your rather over-elaborated point, I supply other evidence to back up the assertion a comparison between current islamophobia and the Crusades (which you selectively choose to ignore) and not just the Google test to demonstrate the link has been made. Your comments above are in bad faith, and are not really constructive. If you have any actual evidence or citations, please mention them and refrain from silly remarks.

I also notice that this IP address has also been vandalising user pages and shares a editing history similarity with other logins/IPs. Please verify, are you the anonymous IP address that has been commenting on this talk page and who may be Deeptrivia. Axon 29 June 2005 01:06 (UTC)

Yes, and I object to your hawkish attitude. My point might be witty, but it is not in bad faith. I am concerned about the degrading standard of wikipedia. I was shocked by the pathetic quality of arguments some editors have been presenting in an attempt to justify the inclusion of crusades in this article. I commented on the other accessible source that you pointed out, , which does not prove anything at all. I don't intend to buy an expensive book written by Emran Qureshi et al. which would either be like rest of the sources, just containing the word crusade in some unrelated context, or simply some Mein Kampf kind of book. In any case, Emran Qureshi is not even a historian. deeptrivia 29 June 2005 02:46 (UTC)

My IP is 130.203.202.156 Thank you. deeptrivia 29 June 2005 02:53 (UTC)

PS: This is a University IP which might be shared by others. deeptrivia 29 June 2005 02:59 (UTC)

PPS: By the way, what evidence do you want me to present? Since you are making a claim, you have to present evidence. If someone tells me that Martians were involved in the Trafalgar 'battle' , it is not my responsibility to find sources that disprove it, and I am sure none would exist. deeptrivia 29 June 2005 03:08 (UTC)

I removed the reference to the Crusades because they were a consequence rather than a reason for islamophobia. It would be more logically sound to mention the conquest of the vast Christian territories of North Africa and the Middle East and the endless Muslim invasions of Spain and southern Italy as a plausible reason for 'islamophobia'. --Germen 1 July 2005 12:56 (UTC)

As we can see from the above evidence I have provided, the comparison between the current climate of Islamophobia and the Crusades has been made before, at least by a signicant minority and in respectable publications like the New Statesmen. For this reason, I hold that this should be noted in the article. Axon 4 July 2005 13:40 (UTC)

You have not provided any solid evidence, you repeated islamic and leftist propaganda. The New Statesman is, according to Misplaced Pages, known as a leftist journal. Please state the logical chain connecting crusades as a cause and islamophobia as a consequence. As long as you cannot prove your bold assertion, this claim does not belong in the introduction. --Germen 5 July 2005 11:41 (UTC)

As clearly pointed out by deeptrivia, the Statesman article that you are showing as evidence just says in one line: " at my own school, I came across Islam only in the negative and confrontational context of the Crusades." It doesn't even come close to saying that the crusades were caused due to/in spite of/ were a result of Islamophobia. At the very best, this describes the Islamophobia of the British authors who wrote these textbooks a few decades back. You are yet to show any credible evidence. 141.151.236.224 4 July 2005 17:23 (UTC)

Exactly. --Germen 5 July 2005 11:41 (UTC)

Please register and login - remarks and comments from anonymous IPs will be treated by suspicion on this page, given the high incidence of hostile anonymous IPs editing on the subject of Islam.

No-one is claiming that: what we are examining is the relationship between the Crusades and Islamophobia as highlighted in the article and references above.

Some more references:

Today Europe relishes in the propaganda against Islam, creating myths and stereotypes and perpetuating them in order to create a climate of Islamophobia. Words like Saracens, barbaric and Infidels where created in the past to negatively and wrongly stereotype Muslims and today they have been replaced by words like Terrorist, Fundamentalist or Extremist as we often see in the western media.

We cannot afford the easy, facile prejudices that inform thinking about Islam and have since the middle ages. When I was in Jerusalem, I saw that our tradition of Islamophobia developed, at the time of the crusades, at exactly the same time as our tradition of Jewish anti-Semitism. The two were linked, and in the 20th century we saw where such bigoted thinking could lead. We simply cannot afford to do it again. Axon 4 July 2005 17:29 (UTC)

Runnymede Trust Definition

1.Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.

2.Islam is seen as separate and 'other'. It does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them.

3.Islam is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist.

4.Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism and engaged in a 'clash of civilisations'.

5. Islam is seen as a political ideology and is used for political or military advantage.

6. Criticisms made of the West by Islam are rejected out of hand.

7. Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.

8. Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural or normal.

In order to validify the Runnymede Trust Definition, we have to check whether the eight statements above are the result of prejudice, i.e. whether they are true or false.

My bit: 1. Muslims are not a monolithic block, but the Islamic source materials, Qur'an and sahih hadith, are generally considered as unchanged and authoritative. Most Muslims feel more solidarity with other Muslims than with infidels, even if the infidels are not at fault. This is manifest by the outrage about the fate of the Palestinians (2000 dead) while mass murder by fellow Muslim in Darfur (200 000+ dead) is ignored. /

2. Islamic theology has a word, bid'a, for non-islamic cultural innovations from other cultures. Mainstream islamic theology rejects bid'a. Nevertheless, there is cultural exchange between islam and other civilizations, of course. Not because of islamic theology, but despite of it. /

3. From a Western point of view, islamic theology, islamic jurisprudence as well as islamic civilization do not match to Western standards at those points, e.g. hand-cutting, stoning, women get half of the share of men, killing of apostates, rejection of rational scepsis, killing gays. Refer: al-Ghazali.Counterexamples are welcome. /

4. Most Muslims think this way, as is manifest from opinion polls. They get their ideas from islamic theology. Both Qur'an and Sunnah differentiate between the Muslims and the infidels and consider the non-Muslims as enemies. /

5. The dominant fundamentalist POV does so. Moderate muslims don't want or cannot stop them. /

6. OK, valid, but it can be a manifestation of chauvinism as well. /

7. Unclear sentence. How can "hostility" justify discrimination? Besides: this is not a prejudice, this is discriminatory behaviour resulting from "hostility", which means, I guess, negative prejudice. So it doesn't belong in the definition. /

8. Hostility towards criminals, racists and neonazis is "seen as normal" too, because they harm their fellow human beings. It should be studied whether there is a valid reason for this hostility. Therefore I press for an analysis of supposed prejudices. --Germen 1 July 2005 17:35 (UTC)

No offence, but your dissent with the definition is irrelavant to this article and the discussion on this page. See WP:NOR. Axon 4 July 2005 14:02 (UTC)

No offence, but you use this "Runnymede Definition" to support your definition of 'islamophobia'. This makes it relevant. Please read your preceding comments. --Germen 5 July 2005 11:16 (UTC)

Start Quote from AxonI note you still maintain the defintion of islamophobia as it is defined by the Runnymede Trust et al is "disputed" but have yet to provide any alternative defintions with citations. This would be most helpful, otherwise we have no reason to believe the defintion is contested.End quote from Axon

I don't really understand your point here: both my remarks you quote seem to back each other up. I asked you to demonstrate evidence that the defintion is disputed and you have yet to do so. Your own disagreement is not adequate evidence of dispute and, hence, irrelevant. Again, please refer to WP:NOR and other Misplaced Pages policies. Axon 5 July 2005 11:45 (UTC)

Stay Strong

Stay strong my brothers, Yuber and Axon and Mustafaa. We will defeat the kafir and we will have the kalifah once more. It is only a matter of time. Fight them here and everywhere.

Constructive comments welcommed, snarky silliness will be ignored. If you want to see a more neutral version please get involved constructively. Axon 09:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Axon. Sounds like a user who knows one or two Islamic terms making a silly comment, nothing more. --Anonymous editor 20:06, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm deeply offended. If you're going to attack their objectivity by making snide remarks about their religion ... what am I, chopped liver? It's kind of like failing to make Nixon's enemies' list. :) BrandonYusufToropov 28 June 2005 19:10 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to look at objective arguments than to take resort to name-calling. For the record: Yuber, Mustafaa, BrandonYusufToporov and "Anonymous User" are all Muslims. I am not a Muslim and I do admit I have a negative POV on islam: according to me the world would be a better place without islam.

I have valid, objective reasons for this view, i.e. Quran, Sunnah, fatwa's and Muslim records at several theaters. Therefore I believe a NPOV approach will be sufficient to defend my view. --Germen 1 July 2005 13:04 (UTC)

So, you admit the anonymous personal attack you made above, was you? How do you think making this kind of comment helps to resolving the issues here? It is frustrating getting blocked, but you only have yourself to blame for breaking the 3RR and taking petty revenge as above is a show of bad faith and a breach of Misplaced Pages policy. If you are responsible for the above remarks, I ask, as a gesture of good will, you apologise and confirm that you will not do this again.

What is more, the religous convictions of editors is also irrelevant to the discussion here. It should be discounted during discussion here. Axon 1 July 2005 16:38 (UTC)

I did not make the first comment in this section. --Germen 1 July 2005 16:43 (UTC)

Solving the unsolvable

I voted to keep this page on its VfD, and it has since errupted into an edit war. I think I echo others when I say that articles such as this are doomed to POV, not becuase they are inherently so, but because of the number of people with axes to grind, subconscious or otherwise, who are determined to bend the article over and fuck any usefulness in an attempt to perusade us that Islam is right/wrong, leaving nothing encyclopedic or useful. Hence, I propose that we ask for someone who has no previous knowledge or experience of Islam to do some research from a few books and come up with a shorter, far more encyclopedic article. Failing that, the article ought to be stripped to its barest of bones, a few basic statements of fact (areas found in, organizations found in, a very brief history) and a dictionary definition that are indisputable. Any additions could then be discussed before being added. Stephen 30 June 2005 01:08 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the above remarks are entirely helpful in settling the dispute. All constructive comments and edits you can make are gratefully received, but the more inflammatory editors (i.e. Germen and Yuber) no longer seem to be involved in this page and those who are left have been attempting to find a reasonable compromise by editing the draft and discussing references.

I'm not sure what a person can do about any "subconscious" biases they might have, but I'd still like to give the traditional Misplaced Pages method a go. I have posted this article for a RfC, although we are yet to get anyone helping out here from the RfC - not sure if I did it correctly! If you would like to create a seperate draft of your reduced version of the article in a sub-namespace here, however, that would be useful.

It is also worth pointing out that some editors dispute the "dictionary" definition of Islamophobia: nothing is quite so clear cut. I ask you familiarise yourself with the various points of dissent above. Axon 30 June 2005 09:31 (UTC)