Talk:Islamophobia - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Axon (talk | contribs) at 17:11, 22 June 2005 (added link to Talk:Islamophobia/archive2). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:11, 22 June 2005 by Axon (talk | contribs) (added link to Talk:Islamophobia/archive2)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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

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 :)

Vote for delete

In light of the deletion of Ameriphobia because it was "hopelessly POV", this article should likewise be deleted to avoid a de facto bias. Otherwise it would be like deleting a pro-abortion page and keeping a pro-life page. I'd like to see arguments why this article should not be deleted when the other article, showing the other side of the debate, should be deleted.

It seems the only criteria around here is the political bias and prejudice of the largely Leftist anti-American Misplaced Pages admin. Otherwise, why were articles such as "Arab dictatorships" deleted and dozens of pages about US conspiracy theories and historical evils kept? It seems like racism and political prejudice determine what is kept and what is banned from Misplaced Pages.

NPOV restored

The POV version starts right away with Islam bashing

...Islam is an inherently totalitarian religion that advocates a law code which is barbaric by modern Western standards, and which rejects the values that Westerners hold dear like freedom of religion, equality, and democracy; they therefore view most Muslims with suspicion.

Where is the proof that all Islamophobes are motivated by these reasons? The introductory paragraph is clearly intended to justify Islamophobia. Imagine the article on anti-semitism beginning with this paragraph, "Anti-Semites believe that Israel is killing children, building illegal settlements, and stealing land." Clearly that introduction would not cover all the anti-semites. That kind of introduction would be intended to bash Israel and justify anti-semitism. The POV version suffers from the same problem here. It is purely intended as Islam bashing and to justify Islamophobia. Reverted to NPOV version OneGuy 00:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I wrote the introductory paragraph which you have removed - is it biased to claim that fear of Sharia law is a motivating factor for many Islamophobes? If you thought that my version was POV, check out this version! GCarty 09:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, your version was also anti-Islamic POV like that one. Both versions began with Islam bashing and a justification for Islamophobia. See what I wrote above about anti-Semitism. What kind of Encyclopedia has an article on anti-Semitism that begins with bashing Jews and reasons to justify anti-Semitism? OneGuy 10:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oneguy, the NPOV version start with "Many "Islamophobes" believe that Islam is an inherently totalitarian religion that advocates a law code which is barbaric by modern Western standards, and which rejects the values that Westerners hold dear like freedom of religion, equality, and democracy; they therefore view most Muslims with suspicion." Is doesn't says all "islamophobes" believe that... or that "Islam is.....". Also, the article doesn't make any excuses for islamophobia, it explain what believes "islamophobia" (the title is in itself POV in my opinion) in many cases is motivated by. Misplaced Pages should not be against islamophobia or the opposite.

That's being an apologist for Islamophobes and is not NPOV. Just like anti-Semitism article should not be turned into bashing Jews and justifying anti-Semitism by Nazi POV pushers, this article should not be turned into Islam bashing by Islamophobes. Besides, the introductory paragraph doesn't describe all Islamophobes. It's specifically designed to bash Islam and justify Islamophobia. This kind of POV pushing should not be allowed on wikipedia OneGuy 19:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the above discussion, of course anti-Islamic POV pushers are going to complain. Anyone who opposes their POV and tries to promote NPOV is "apologist" to them. Every credible source uses the word "Islamophobia" in a negative way. A quote on the US State Department site: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/spbr/40347.htm

like the OSCE now has special rapporteurs on intolerance, three different types -- anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and then other forms of intolerance. And the UN actually has condemned these things, too.

UNGA Declaration Against Racism has a clause:

The World Conference also recognizes with deep concern the existence of Islamophobia and hostile acts and violence against Arabs which are evidenced in various parts of the world.

The POV pushers would instead like to justify Islamophobia (condemned both by the UN and the US government as despicable like racism and anti-Semetism) and bash Islam in the article instead. If you oppose their POV bigotry, you are an "apologist." But I am going to delete and revert any POV I find, no matter how much they dislike me for that OneGuy 11:20, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

By definition you are an Islamic Apologist and a POV pusher. Your contributions, especially the ones 3 months ago is very clear in that regard. You attempt to whitewash anything that you think reflects badly on Islam, regardless of the truth. You have shifted blame to the victims of Muhammad's raids, you have defended Muhammad having "married" and had sex with a 9 year old by calling the victim a liar. You have labeled the Jews of Medina who were killed by Muhammad's warriors as "traitors". You insist that every sura in the Koran that talks of violence is "taken out of context". If that isn't POV pushing and not the work of an Islamic Apologist then I don't know what is. Sure, you claim on your user page that you are athiest, but it's well known that Muslims are allowed to lie about their religion in order to fool the enemy. 168.209.97.34 11:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You just vioated another arbitration ruling by posting personal insults. You will be reported OneGuy 11:43, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You do that. How ironic that you go and call others POV pushers but when someone points the finger back at you then you complain of personal attacks. 168.209.97.34 11:45, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, you called me a liar above by asserting that I am lying about my religion. That's a personal insult . See Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. You violated that, besides violating POV parole OneGuy 11:50, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I never called you a liar. Try reading it again or have someone else explain it to you. I simply truthfully said that Muslims are allowed to lie about their religion. I didn't say you were telling a lie. You sure are getting desperate in your attemps to silence anyone who does not agree with your apologistic views. 168.209.97.34 11:54, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:-) Implication was a clear.. anyway, I will let that part go. The POV parole is still there OneGuy 11:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Implication was not there. As FoxNews says, "we report, you decide". And why let this go? If you are going to game the system then game it right! Here is your chance to game the management here and have them block this infidel (and the 5,00+ other ppl who use this proxy server) for a week! I must admit you do a good job gaming the system here. You seem to have the management wrapped around your finger. 168.209.97.34 12:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't have any special skills :)) The rational people examine the evidence and make the right decision. End your personal insults and POV trolling , and you can then "game the system" too. Anyway, this is getting pretty off topic. OneGuy 12:43, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Will you end your POV pushing as well? Quid Pro Quo 168.209.97.34 12:48, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No evidence of POV pushing found by the arbitration. I will stop when they think (like in your case) I was pushing POV OneGuy 12:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That is because the arbcom members didn't bother looking. And I am issuing an appeal against that ruling since the arbcom members refused to respond to my comments. It will catch up with you, you will see. Nobody gets away with things like that forever. 168.209.97.34 12:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead and appeal. Good luck OneGuy 12:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have tried to rephrase the initial paragraph such that a more neutral POV is achieved.

The link added by Mustafaa to www.islamophobiawatch.org has been restored. Because the reversion by Mustafaa was way out of bounds and unnecessary, it has been nixed.

- Germen

The "West"

Where the current article has ...

It has been argued by some, most notably Edward Said, that the denigration of Islamic civilisation associated with Islamophobia is central to the concept of Western Civilisation. The ousting and marginalising of Islam marks the debut of ***‘Western’ Civilisation*** and, thus, explains the depth and longevity of western Islamophobia:

... please note the quote marks around "Western" and consider their importance. The phrase in asterisks may be rephrased, as I see it, as ***"so-called 'Western,' as distinguished from so-called 'Eastern,' Civilization."***

I believe the most important component of the phenomenon of Islamophobia (with apologies to the Runnymede folks, who are clearly doing their best) is precisely this artificial distinction between West and East, with Islam representing the Other, and securely in the far cultural distance, as opposed to, you know, here. Where the normal people are.

Facts to consider:

The last time I checked, Spain was in Europe; in the ninth century, the library at Cordoba contained 500,000 books. Were they Eastern or Western books?

Much of the knowledge that fueled Europe's Scientific Revolution was generated by Islamic scientists working in the fields of astronomy, chemistry, optics, mathematics, etc. Were these Eastern or Western advances?

The present European (and hence global) number system comes from Islam. So does algebra. Are they Eastern or Western numbers?

The National Library of Medicine (a public domain source) writes: "Chaucer ... (names) physicians from the medieval Islamic world: Ibn Sarabiyun or Serapion as he was known to Europe, a Syriac physician of the 9th century; `Razis' the great clinician of the early 10th century; and `Avicen', or Avicenna as other Europeans called him, referring to Ibn Sina whose early 11th-century medical encyclopedia was as important in Europe as it was in the Middle East. Just as early Greek medical teaching served as a common intellectual framework for professional medical practice in the Islamic Near East, so Arabic medical literature of the 9th to 12th centuries, through Latin translations, provided late medieval Europe with ideas and practices from which early modern medicine eventually arose." Is modern medicine an Eastern or Western development?

There are today between six and ten million Muslims in the United States. Are they Easterners or Westerners?

There are between one and three million Muslims in the United Kingdom. Are they Easterners or Westerners?

A huge community of Muslims has been growing steadily in and around Dearborn, Michigan since the early decades of the twentieth century. Are they Easterners or Westerners?

The conservative group Muslims for America (formerly Muslims for Bush) is launching a fundraising drive to aid victims of the recent tsunami. Is this an Eastern or Western initiative?

All of this doesn't mean that Greeks weren't great mathematicians, or that Newton wasn't a great scientist, or that Jonas Salk wasn't a great physician, or that George Bush is promoting tolerance toward Muslims. My point is that that human knowledge, inspiration, and cultural advancement doesn't have any problem cross-pollenating between communities, regardless of the labels the residents of those communities may attach to themselves. That was true in ninth-century Spain, and it's true today.

I believe this whole Islam vs. the West thing is itself an example of stark cultural bias, and is in no way neutral.

This trend toward Islam being identified with the Other ... this trend toward Muslims being identified with the East (the Eastern side of Dearborn, Michigan, maybe?) as opposed to the "civilized" West, is nevertheless intensifying with every passing day.

It is fair to ask: Why is this trend so much more noticeable recently, i.e., within the last ten years? Islamophobia predates 9/11, as the article points out.

Could economic and geopolitical pressures related to the scarcity of oil supplies have made it convenient for certain groups to focus obsessively on that which separates Muslims from non-Muslims?

To what degree is the perpetuation of this supposed "East/West" distinction a maninfestation of Islamophobia? And should this issue be addressed in the article? BrandonYusufToropov 13:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The idea of the "otherness" of the West is of course promoted by some Muslim clerics.

Exile 15:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And some Christian preachers. It is, however, inherent neither to Islam nor Christianity. BrandonYusufToropov 15:36, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please address POV points in "The 'West'" above before making major edits, Djames

Thanks. BrandonYusufToropov 15:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yet another request to Djames

Please discuss the issues raised in my note "The 'West'" here on the Talk page

before

editing the text again, okay?

Many thanks. BrandonYusufToropov 16:39, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here is what Djames wrote above in the (only?) response:

"islamophobia" (the title is in itself POV in my opinion)Djames

I cited both the US State Department and the UN. Both have condemned "Islamophobia" as despicable as racism and anti-Semitism, but Djames thinks that the title is POV! How would people feel if a Nazi comes here and claims that the title of the article "anti-Semitism" is POV? And, if the article on ati-Semitism is on wikipedia, it must give equal space to Nazis and anti-Semities to justify their hatred by bashing Jews? This kind of POV nonsense should of course never be tolerated OneGuy 21:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

revert war

Djames and BrandonYusufToropov, be careful to note the three-revert rule which it appears both of you have violated. Djames, I don't see any of your comments on the Talk page and the version to which you keep reverting makes subjective statements (e.g., "Islamophobia is hostility to the religion of Islam and especially to its inherent political dimensions"). The tone in general sounds as if it is coming from an Islamophobe apologist (e.g. putting Islamophobe in quotes in the intro), and is clearly not NPOV. --MPerel 17:52, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

BrandonYusufToropov, do not revert more than three times in 24 hours. Djames would have been dealt with for violating 3rv rule. OneGuy 19:45, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My mistake, sorry. BrandonYusufToropov 20:28, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

POV Failure

Both versions of this page have serious POV failures..

During the 1990’s many sociologists and cultural analysts observed a shift in racist ideas from ones based on skin colour to ones based on notions of cultural superiority and otherness.

This sentence prejudges the racism debate, which is a totally stupid debate about what particular meaning we will give the word "racism" rather than any valid meaningful debate. Changing it to say shift in forms of prejudice from would make it NPOV simply. There is no need to put the authors of the paper inline.

The term is typically used to criticize specific people as bigoted toward Muslims. (my bold)

are there any statistics on that, or is that just an assertion?

Islamophobia has been increased in western societies, primarily due to the erroneous' linking of all members of the Muslim faith with the small numbers of violent

primarily? erroneous? No POV here.

Islamophobia has been provoked....

arrggghhh... no predjudging the issue going on here...

Mozzerati 21:51, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

Excellent comments. Even the use of "ironically" in "Ironically, anti-Muslim bias has occasionally been expressed in violent attacks on Sikhs" is a value judgement word that should be eliminated. --MPerel 22:13, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Here is one of the problem with the previous version. I cited two sources both compare Islamophobia with racism and anti-Semitism. The US State Department:

And the UN

The World Conference also recognizes with deep concern the existence of Islamophobia and hostile acts and violence against Arabs which are evidenced in various parts of the world.

The previous version was written by an Islamophobe apologist who (despite the fact that the word "Islamophobe" is used in a negative way by the UN) instead implied that "Islamophobe" just value "democracy and freedom" which is not compatible (in his POV opinion) with Islam. That's an opposite definition of how the UN used the word. In his edit summary, POV pusher Djames gave this reason for revert: Islamophobes "MUST get their case presented." That's like a Nazi (note the US State Department used the word "Islamophobia" in the same sentence as anti-Semitism) saying that Nazis "MUST get their case presented" in anti-Semitism article OneGuy 22:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've implemented NPOV changes to the current version per Mozzerati's suggestions. Whoever added inline author references may want to footnote these instead. There is room in the Criticism section to address objections to the concept of Islamophia; however, it has to be NPOV, i.e., reporting accurately sourced views of what others think, not a personal editorial. --MPerel 23:19, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Examples of Islamophobia are "out of context"

Why is it that when one quotes from the Koran, even if they give the full reference to the source, that show Islam is a less than peaceful nature then it's called "out of context". Yet on this page there is a huge list of examples on quotes that give examples of Islamophobia. Why the double standard? If the quotes that give examples of Islamophobia is allowed, why can't we give a few violent quotes from the Koran as examples as to WHY some people are Islamophobic? 168.209.97.34 13:06, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gosh! Are you playing games or are you really ? The quotes that you posted were out of context. The context in that case changed the meaning. This is not the case here. These quotes faithfully convey the intended meaning. Adding the next or previous sentence (unlike what you did with Qur'anic verses) do not change the meaning. For anyone interested to see how this user posted out of context verses, please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/168.209.97.34 (the evidence page), and also note to admins who are reading this, this user is on POV parole for one year by arbcom ruling OneGuy 13:17, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You have just made a personal attack. This is violation of the arbitration in which you were asked not to respond with personal attacks. You will be reported. 168.209.97.34 13:21, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good luck :)) OneGuy 13:24, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

above comment edited by sannse (talk) 13:54, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, Sannse scroll above and see some of his insults regarding me (where he called me a liar) and insulting Muslims and Islam in general OneGuy 13:58, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

First, there was no personal attack by me to you. If there was you would have done your best to get the sysops to block me for it. And, according to Islamic holy scripture, they are allowed to lie to further Allah's cause. I can get the exact quotes for you, but I'm sure you will simply say they are taken out of context!!!

That's just flat out false that Muslims are allowed to lie according their scriptures. You comments regarding me and Islam and Muslims were nothing but offensive slanders. This not unlike a Nazi coming here and posting slanders that Jews are supposed drink blood of children according to their scriptures. You need stop your slanders and personal insults OneGuy 14:13, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wow, now OneGuy compares me to a Nazi! Surely that is a personal attack as well? 168.209.97.34 14:21, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

no, OneGuy just fell for Godwin's law. It means that the discussion is over. dab (ᛏ) 14:35, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A comment here (as an editor, not as an arbitrator) how about you both stop bickering and go back to talking about the article? If things are getting heated - walk away from the computer for a while and calm down. The "play nice" in my edit comment was directed at both of you. If you feel you have cause, the dispute resolution process is open to you as always. This will be my last comment here for now -- sannse (talk) 14:26, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see. So when OneGuy violates the terms of the arbitration ruling you are no longer an arbitrator and can't do anything but whitewash it? Why were you an arbitrator when ruling against me? Why weren't you on the same side of the fence you are on now? Is this how arbitrators do things? 168.209.97.34 14:31, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

sannse gave you free advice. arbitrators vote on rulings. admins enforce said rulings. sannse just came to this talk page as a regular editor, he didn't even need to explicitly say so. Anyway, no arbcom ruling was violated. Go and take a shower, or a walk in the park. dab (ᛏ) 14:35, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dbachmann, I complain about personal attacks and you reply with go walk in the park? Such actions are very unprofessional. 168.209.97.34 14:42, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

--Drallas 08:24, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC) Sorry but this article is not objective at all, I prefer RK's version because Islamophobia is not deriving from Xenophobia. It could be but knowledge of the Islam will show people that it’s violent side is what causes Islamophobia. And I prefer to change the word Islamophobia for disgust.

Lines like this cause it Bukhari:V4B52N260 “The Prophet said, ‘If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.’” Bukhari:V9B88N174 “I heard the Prophet saying, ‘Islam cannot change!’” Bukhari:V7B67N427 “The Prophet said, ‘If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath.’”

In other words this is a religion who kills anyone who rejects it, it wont change and it lies to get what it wants.

So it's not always a phobia, but knowledge of the nature of this religion. I have the feeling this article is controlled too much by assuming ignorant socialists…

At least read http://www.prophetofdoom.net , Koran, the Bible, mein Kamph and not only Marx…

I strongly agree, the 'article' is obviously a pile of hopeless POV trash. I think it might make sense to delete the crap, and replace it with a redirect to List of political epithets? Stereotek 15:30, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I dont know how & why people justify their views by quoting prophet of doom . I read like 4 or 5 pages of the book & it was so full of wrong meanings/interpretations & out of context verses that I thought this book isnt worth my time . Better to read some athiest "sane minded" philosopher then him .

Further more he starts by saying I am doing a favour to Quran by correcting its Grammer . I mean he didnt know anything about Quran before 911 & now he is an authority on arabic language ??? This is soooo funy .

For people who dont know , there R many hadith about the same subject that differ with each other . Thatswhy we have scholars to judge which hadidh is strong and which is weak . Its never right to take one hadith & present it as a justification for Islamphobia . 4:45 GMT , March 27 2005 user:Farhansher

I knew someone will say this. It is so hopelessly futile to argue with these people. They would never accept the truth, no matter how obvious it is, unless it is all-praise for Islam. If there is something in the Koran which literally corresponds to a positive modern value, they would say: look, the Koran always said this. Our civilization has always been the most liberal and advanced. On the other hand, if there is something that Koran says, even again and again, that literally corresponds to something disgusting, they will start by saying one or more of the following things:

- This is metaphorical. Don't take it literally. It actually means this(a long fantastic explanation.) This lame excuse will be given for the most plain and factual statements like

"5:72 They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. ... Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden paradise. His abode is the Fire."

- You are reading an English translation. Obviously it ceases to be the word of God, since it is an interpretation.

- You don't know anything about the Koran. You are not an authority on the Koran, so you are wrong.

- Unless you are a Muslim, you cannot understand the Koran, since "you follow your baser self."

- You are insane.

- You are conspiring against Islam

- It's obvious that you suffer from "Islamophobia", why else would you criticize the Koran. (So all criticism of Koran is irrational.)

- You don't know the Arabic language.

- You will repent for your actions later on.

- You will go to Hell.

- "Allah is blinded you", so you will never be able to see the truth.

It's totally futile. Now that they have taken over Misplaced Pages, and people are getting blocked for any attempts to make articles less POV, I am seriously considering leaving it before it becomes some kind of Islamopedia. 70.105.188.134 04:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by the above or how it contributes to the neutrality of this section. If you wish to contrubute to making the article less POV please see the call for references below and join in the discussino in a constructive way.

Also, I'm not aware of anyone getting blocked for making an article less POV: the only person I am aware of who got blocked in relation to this page was Germen who was blocked for breaking the rules of Misplaced Pages (in this case the 3RR) despite a second chance and a warning. The edit war that was started through his/her inability to provide references of full discussions and explanations for her edits which could all have been avoided with a little patience and compromise. Axon 09:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Irrelevant quote

I've commented the following statement in the main article, as it's clearly political and does not show prejudice against Islam in the way that the others do:

Rabbi Meir Kahane (1974): "There are no 'moderate' Arabs. There are only clever and less clever, patient and impatient. The final solution for all is the same - the elimination of any Jewish State. And so we repeat: There is no 'Palestine people' and there is no 'Palestine.'" Administrator note

I've also noticed from this discussion that some people agree with me on this. Thanks, -=vyruss=- 13:40, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

POV edit 5/4/05

regarding:

Michael Savage: "I think these people need to be forcibly converted to Christianity ... It's the only thing that can probably turn them into human beings." (on his radio show The Savage Nation)

Savage never said "Arabs and Muslims." One's opionion should not be displayed as fact on wikipedia. He was referring to terrorists that beheaded Nick Berg, and Paul Johnson. In fact, Savage often states that Islam is a peaceful religion except for a very small, but very violent minority.

Jm51 03:37, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

defining what the word means, rather than who uses it.

Currently the article begins with

Islamophobia is term used by Islamic advocates to discredit proponents of criticisms of Islam and Islamic culture.

So, the word doesn't actually mean anything, it's merely a tag to indicate "I'm an Islamic advocate" ?

I'm reverting the first paragraph to what it used to say on 19:04, 13 May 2005. Because I think an article should begin by defining what the word means, rather than who uses it.

--DavidCary 09:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Not at all David, the word is a rhetorical epithet used by the islamic propaganda machine to redefine anyone who criticizes Islamic Culture as irrational and racist. That is the first thing wikireaders needs to know about this word. You would not for instance begin defining the word "nigger" with the propaganda definition of the Klu Klux Klan. (You can probably guess what the KKK definition would be). You would instead begin by saying that it is an racial epithet that is used by certain groups to demean people of the black race.--68.130.206.36 12:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Revised article to try to defuse conflict

I reverted a very POV introduction to the article, and then decided that the previous version was POV in its own way. Since there are apparently at least two sides to the issue, I rewrote the first para to include both sides, and moved the anti-Islamophobia section UP, so that both POVs got approximately equal billing. I hope that this will defuse some of the conflict -- though, given the subject, that's probably a forlorn hope <g>. Zora 02:01, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I shortened the introduction to the part we all agree upon. POV parts have been moved to different sections.

--Germen 13:47, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Disagreement with Yuber

Yuber, you reverted to the old intro to the article, which assumed that Islamophobia was a real phenomenon. But some people assert that it's just a ploy to deflect criticism. That's exactly why I rewrote the intro, so that it didn't take sides. It's possible that one side is true, or that the other is true, or indeed, that they're both true. I know you think you're being NPOV but I assure you that the old intro is subtly biased. You know I'm not one of the Islam-bashers. I'm trying to defuse the conflict, so that the article doesn't get vandalized as often. Zora 00:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I know, but looking at other phobia articles that refer to ethnic and social groups the -phobia ending itself means an irrational hatred of the certain group. There is a criticism of the concept section, a section that is not present on any other phobia article, and that section is sufficient. You can expand that section as much as you like and show how much people think that Islamophobia is a "PC term" and that hatred of all things Muslim is in fact justified. That does not change the original meaning of the term or how it is used today.Yuber 00:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I looked at the homophobia and negrophobia articles. The homophobia introductory para is abrupt and clunky (probably reflecting a history of angry politicized edits) but it does say up front that there is a controversy. The negrophobia article is much more POV, probably because there's no one participating in Misplaced Pages right now who'd speak up against African-Americans. I don't think we have any neo-Nazis. So, I think that the controversy re Islamophobia should be right there in the first para.

Maybe my formulation wasn't the best one, but there has to be a way to do it that's going to convince the resident angry Islam-bashers that their POV isn't being relegated to an aside. I'll admit that I personally hold the third view presented in my para, which is that there are Islamophobes (we've seen them), and Muslims who see Islamophobia everywhere, even where it isn't.

The problem with the "phobia" definition is that it tries to turn any criticism into proof of a mental illness in the critic. Hence you get Israel supporters angrily claiming that anyone who objects to anything Israel is doing is an anti-semite, gays suggesting that anyone who has public-health objections to serial unprotected sex in bathhouses is a homophobe, and Muslims suggesting that anyone who disapproves of Islamism is an Islamophobe. It's a concept designed to shut down talk, not encourage it. It seems to me that what Islam and the West need is MORE talk and LESS terrorism and military action. Zora 00:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I removed the word "irrational", perhaps that is what the LGFers had a problem with. If they feel that it is totally rational to hate all Muslims then so be it.Yuber 00:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Unprotecting the page

I vote to adopt Zora's version which presents both POVs.--Fredwall 03:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

The definition of a a "phobia" is an irrational fear of something. It's POV to have that in the intro. Klonimus 06:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, Klonimus.

The article in question is called Islamophobia.
A phobia is, by definition, an irrational fear.
But we can't mention that fact in the opening?
Please clarify. Is it okay to mention that Islam is a religion in the opening of that article? Or would that be POV?BrandonYusufToropov 11:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

- Again wikipedia is not about engaging in semantic formalism. I agree with Yuber on the removal of irrational from the lead sentance. It is possible for somone to have a rational fear of Islam or muslims possibly, thought not exclusivly as a result of experiencing Islamic terrorism, or a violent crime commited by a muslim. Claiming that Islamophobia is per se irrational is POV. Klonimus 04:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. If it were a rational fear, it would not be a phobia. That's not semantic formalism, it's English, minus the doubletalk. BrandonYusufToropov 09:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
- -phobia simply means "fear of". In psychiatirc usage it means a distressing possibly irrational fear of. Again you are engaging in semantic formalism. Klonimus 04:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
- Brandon, while I respect your opinion, I still think irrational needs to be removed after looking at other articles such as Anti-Semitism,Anti-Catholicism, and Negrophobia. None of these articles include the world irrational.Yuber 19:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Bulk removal of references

Farhanikarim, I noticed that you removed a large section of the references section. Can you explain this edit? Kelly Martin 17:47, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Kelly Martin, I removed them because the "references" section and the "see also" section were copied and pasted onto the article twice. I removed only the duplicate versions of the references and the see also sections. Please look for what changes have been made before jumping to conclusions. Farhanikarim

Ah, thanks for the explanation. It's sometimes hard to tell in a large page what's been changed, which is why I asked. Kelly Martin 18:58, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Invasion of India

One reasons of Islamophobia in India is the memories of Islamic invasions carried out in the last millenium. Hence a reference is pertinent.

Revert

I just reverted Germen's edits, and those of the anon immediately preceding. If anyone wants to sort through gems like "As such, it is opposed to islamophilia, the supposed irrational attribution of positive qualities to Islam or muslims", "others attribute the differences in socio-economic position to the cultural isolation in which many Muslims choose to live in", or "violent Islamist movements and the massive support those movements have in the Muslim community" for worthwhile material, you're welcome to look through them.... - Mustafaa 23:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mustafaa's suggestions as far as they increase the information value of the article have been implemented. - Germen

Um, I was being sarcastic in calling those "gems". Those are some of the most egregious sentences in your proposed version. Care to back them up? - Mustafaa 18:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mustafaa's sarcasm had been noted. I corrected those sentences which warranted it. Also I nixed his revert because this decreased information value and promoted a non-neutrral POV. Germen 11 Jun 2005

Why Revert?

I would like to know why these changes were reverted. The topic is "Reasons for Islamophobia" and we are just presenting the typical arguments given by Islamophobes to justify their position. It is clearly stated that those are the reasons given by "Islamophobes" and need not be valid reasons. Also, all the reasons are presented in quotes to highlight that those need not be truths. So, I am not saying X is true, but that "A justifies Islamophobia by asserting X is true." Are you, by any chance trying to hide these arguments from people who might find them reasonable?

See my previous comment for why I reverted - "extensive, massively POV-ridden changes too extensive to sort through." Quite possibly some parts of your edit are neutral and worth keeping, but clearly not all, or even most. - Mustafaa 17:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For the "arguments" section specifically, the problem is claiming that Islamophobes hold all these beliefs. You speak as if there were self-identified Islamophobes defending Islamophobia as a good idea; I can't find any. Even a true Islamophobe like Robert Spencer doesn't acknowledge being one; he just criticises the concept as flawed. We already have a "criticism of the concept" section. - Mustafaa 18:41, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Propaganda Article

This has become more of a propaganda article, where all changes made to make the article more neutral are simply deleted without stating any reasons. It's a extremely POV article hijacked by some brainwashed extremists.

Why not adopt a username, sign your posts, and make your case here for the specific points you feel should be incorporated? BrandonYusufToropov 17:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree in this. I tried to make the article more NPOV and rid it from nonspeak. English is not my mother tongue so stylistic errors can be present in my contributions. Germen

On why it's all POV

Basically this article equates criticism of Islam to Islamophobia, and is highly unbalanced. This article can never be NPOV, simply because the concept of Islamophobia itself is a POV. First, I don't understand why the word "irrational" was removed. Rational fear of Islam cannot be termed as Islamophobia. Whether a fear is rational or irrational can be objectively determined easily in some cases, e.g. acrophobia. In case of Islam, whether a fear is irrational or not is highly subjective. Consequently, the Runnymede Trust definition is POV, since, for example it is POV to say that Islam is not a "monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change ." Moreover, some "Islamophobic" comments like those of Jean-Marie Le Pen are simply hard facts.

Above statement by Deeptrivia. --Irishpunktom\ 16:53, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

It is perfectly possible to write a NPOV article on Islamophobia. Such an article would probably require there to be a critical section in one of the articles on Islam which is separate from the "Islamophobia" article. The islamophobia article should then focus on the word its self; the phobic fear of Islam (irrational??), probably briefly, how it has been used against critics of Islam and also.

Probably ideally there should be several articles

islam which should include a short critical section
fear of islam which should discuss the fear of Islam in the world, both rational and irrational
islamophobia which should discuss the phenomenon of the word, plus, briefly, phenomenon like the Ann Coulters of the world
criticism of islam if, and only if, the critical section of the Islam article becomes more than a short section then it might be reasonable to split it off later.

A good NPOV article will not provide support for a word you don't like. Instead it will just document how it is used. If you think it is being abused and can provide references, then you will probably not be unhappy with such an article. Mozzerati 05:13, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

Islamophilia

Deletion of a link to Islamophilia by one person shows the extreme degree of intolerance of this Islamic Fundamentalist.

Nothing in the above justifies your edits to the introduction and definition of islamophobia, and POV inclusion of the term "apologists". I have reverted your changes and ask that you participate in the call for references above before making any further changes. Axon 14:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Islamophobia is as POV as is islamophilia. I agree with the argument given by Anonymous. --Germen 15:15, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The anonymous user doesn't give any reasons for the inclusion of said link so I'm not sure what you are referring to here. I also do not see how the use of the term "apologist" is explained by your own remarks. Axon 16:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

VfD template restored

I have restored the subst:vfd notice, which was unilaterally removed by User:Thüringer — five hours before s/he voted on that VfD. The vote for deletion is still active, so the notice must remain. — Dan Johnson 02:31, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

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)