This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Donkey Hot-day (talk | contribs) at 14:59, 13 September 2020 (→Islamophobia in many countries but they don't have a precise page ('See also' section): new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:59, 13 September 2020 by Donkey Hot-day (talk | contribs) (→Islamophobia in many countries but they don't have a precise page ('See also' section): new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Skip to table of contents |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
| This page is not a forum for general discussion about Islamophobia. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Islamophobia at the Reference desk. |
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
 | This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Islamophobia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | Sources for this article can be found at Talk:Islamophobia/Sources. |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CELINEZ (article contribs).
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2019 and 2 January 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Barrieh1 (article contribs).
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Ongoing systematic bias
Misrepresentation of sources and biased statements based on unreliable sources
This is a one sided article which paddles Pro-Islamic and Islamic apologists views only. Examples (not the exhaustive list) are given below and which need to be corrected, the whole article needs reverification if the statements in article match with what the source says. Protected Islamophobia article has multiple issues:
Example1: Modi/BJP bashing based on opinon pieces in newspapers, hence can't be counted as WP:RELIABLE)
Example2: Misrepresentation of sources to incorrectly show biased Hindu attitude towards Islam e.g. claim in the article misrepresents this source cited with the claim.
The Islamophobia#Geographic trends section has dubious and outright misleading phrasing
"A report from Australia has found that the levels of Islamophobia among Buddhists and Hindus are significantly higher than among followers of other religions."
whereas the source actually says
"There are significant differences in Islamophobia scores among respondents with different religious affiliations. Firstly, as one would expect, Muslims have the lowest Islamophobia score: 1.3 compared with the national average of 2.2. They are followed by followers of Judaism and people with no religion, who have lower Islamophobia scores than the national average. Except for Anglicans all Christian groups have Islamophobia scores higher than the national average. Except for Anglicans all Christian groups have Islamophobia scores higher than the national average of 2.2. Among the Christian groups Presbyterians have the highest score followed by Greek Orthodox, Uniting Church, Baptists, Lutherans, Catholics and ‘other Christians’.Among the followers of non-Christian religious affiliations, the Buddhists and Hindus, two of the fastest growing religions in Australia, have significantly higher Islamophobia scores."
The table 12 on page 14 has the Islamophobia rated on a qualitative nominal scale. On the "nominal scale",
1 means NO BIAS or a islamoPHILE (non-muslim who loves muslims),
2.5 means AVERAGE or NEUTRAL (anti and pro bias coexist in equal measure),
5 means VERY BIASED (any value above 2.5 represent the person has more anti-islam bias compared to pro-islam bias they behold).
Source actually shows Hindus in Australia have 2.5 score i.e. below (either neutral or hold co-existing feeling of more pro-islam over anti-islam), article however misrepresents it as if ozzie hindus are anti muslim. This is dangerous, because such articles are then pipelinked elsewhere and used in edit wars to silence other with wrong facts.
Your action needed: Remove the statements from article related to 2 exmaples above. Please add Template:Multiple_issues and Template:Systemic bias on top of the article. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 07:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Add a section on "Victim playing" by muslims by citing Islamophobia against the legitimate criticism of islam
Misplaced Pages policies require eiditng based on the "rational" modern scientific rules e.g. reliable sources, unbiased editing, repesent diverse range of perspectives including proponents views as well as critics views. This article currently represents only the "muslims are victims" perspective. It does not include the critique (critcisim, counter and counter-counter), e.g. how islamophobia is also misused by playigg victim' e.g. even on wiikipedia talkpages itself.
Misplaced Pages policies manadate "right of freedom" which includes the
- "right of freedom of religion", i.e. right to believe in religion,
- "right of freedom FROM religion", i.e. quit religion without being persecuted, islam remains the only religion with death sentence for blasphemy in 13 islamic nations.
- "right of freedom to criticise ihumane acts justified and legitimized in the name of religion" (e.g. pedophilia, misogyny, slave trading, jizya on dhimmi kafirs, and so on, thats why wikipedia allows articles on criticim of religions and their founders including Criticism of Islam and Criticism of Muhammad).
Many editors are scared of countering systemetic pro-islamic bias on wikipedia for the fear of being "incorrectly labelled as islamophobic" and being trageted. This may take the form of some editors "playing victim" to rally other muslims by crying "islam under attack" in case of legitimiate criticism of islam. Misplaced Pages is not a tool for proselytizing or whitewashing the uncomfortable truth, nor wikipedia is a platform for executing "online death sentence" for those editors who try to implement the spirit, principals and policies of wikipedia by taking on leigitimate concen of systematic wide-spread pro-islamic bias across numerous wikipedia articles. This bias works in two ways,
- (a) keeping islam related articles represented from the "islamic-proselytizers" (supremacist agenda, islam is best and purest with no flaws), and
- (b) "Islamic-lobbists" and "islamic-apologists"" neutralising criticism of islamic by trying to keep it out by "playing victim", rallying others with "islam under attack", repeated reverts and causing multipel objections to tire out or scare off other editors (war of attrition and jihad], e.g. even the term "information jihad" has been kept out of wikipedia and article on jihad eventhough huge number of reliable sources exist on it). 58.182.176.169 (talk) 07:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Why don't you just read the article before you criticize it? The article does include critique. In fact it has a whole section called Islamophobia#Criticism_of_term_and_use. You playing the victim card here is ridiculous. Just look at all the Islam articles. They are full of critique. In fact Misplaced Pages even publishes the whole Muhammad cartoons upfront (when even most newspapers didn't). The article on Muhammad is full of pictures of the islamic prophet (even though Muslims don't really like that). I think the bias on the English Misplaced Pages is clearly on the other side. If anyone has to fear an "online death sentence" than it is Muslims, not those who criticize them. In fact, I could even prove that to you, if I wouldn't get blocked for providing such a proof. --Raphael1 19:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Article needs more non-muslim editors as watchers
To add WP:BALANCE by removing systematic WP:BIAS, please invite more editors from diverse backgrounds to add this article to their watchlist. Start by adding this to your watchlist. If bias continues, flag the editors/admins with bias and get them banned (at least from this article) for having a peristent WP:DISRUPTIVE pattern.
Thank you. 07:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Image concerns
Referring to the image of Arun Pathak & the "1992 demolition of the Babri Masjid mosque"; how is this a case of Islamophobia? This image isn't suitable for the article and the caption is leading in nature. DTM (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Islamicphobia
We should hava a redirect to this page if some types Islamicphobia instead of Islamophobia. Doremon764 (talk) 02:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Doremon764: Your suggestion is not clear enough, can you elaborate a little further.
- Bookku (talk) 12:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Biden said Islamicphobic instead of Islamophobia. So we do a redirect so people know it's the same thing Doremon764 (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- Oh Okay, I didn't know that. By the way I find myself bemused who decides on languages and terminologies ? and what if those are not fair enough?
- Wikipedians decided to retain wording 'social distancing' and not to shift over to 'physical distancing' though the later one is more fair.
- Here in this case 'Muslim phobia' is being unnecessarily conflated with Islamophobia and now some one Biden adds in new 'IslamicPhobic' and expects the rest of the world to accept.
- Bookku (talk) 08:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Media and Islamophobia
This source can be used in the matter of Islamophobia and the media: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/20/muslim-terror-attacks-press-coverage-study }} 46.32.121.140 (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Islamophobia in many countries but they don't have a precise page ('See also' section)
Islamophobia articles seem to only have been created for the West, Poland, Israel, & China. Myanmar & India for instance don't have them (with Violence against Muslims in India & Persecution of Muslims in Myanmar being the closest ones to the topic). A google search for sources also indicates plenty of other countries that could warrant a page but don't have one (e.g Cambodia, Thailand, Czech Republic, Sri Lanka, Hungary, Central African Republic, the Balkans etc. Some of these have little to no coverage on Misplaced Pages without even a separate article.
So the question is, should the noteworthy cases be added & merged, like Islamophobia in India or Islamophobia in Cambodia? Personally though, I'm a little lazy when it comes to creating new Misplaced Pages pages... Donkey Hot-day (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Categories:- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- All unassessed articles
- C-Class Islam-related articles
- Mid-importance Islam-related articles
- WikiProject Islam articles
- C-Class Religion articles
- Mid-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- C-Class Discrimination articles
- Mid-importance Discrimination articles
- WikiProject Discrimination articles