Islam B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

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

Template:Troll warning

"On 21 November 2006, six imams were forcefully removed from a US Airways flight at Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport on suspicions of terrorism. The event led to an outcry from Muslim organizations in America saying that what happened showed the growing prejudice against Muslims in America.[108] Details of the accusations made against the imams can be found in the official police report on the incident (currently exclusively hosted here), which includes written witness testimony of the imams' extremely suspicious activity, such as praising terrorism, praying unnecessarily loudly, asking for seat-belt extensions that were obviously not needed (then putting said extensions under their seats), not sitting in their assigned seats (having someone near each exit in a pattern shared by hijackers of the past), and getting up to move around and confer with each other repeatedly"

That section is not true and contains a link to a website that makes false unsubstantiated claims. They claim that only they have access to the official police reports (obviously not true) and they claim to have interviewed a passenger from the plane without giving any information as to who the passenger is or how they came to interview her. Their way around this is to claim that she needs her name protected for her own safety (again already showing their bias). This is no different then me making false claims on the Catholic or Jewish page and linking websites with a racist undertone.

Why the use of the word 'alledged' before examples of islamophobia. Are you trying to suggest that the claims are false? If you were Muslim you would know that islamophobia exists. I think you should remove alledged it doesn't happen on other articles about Racism.

By hearing that a 57 old man "consumates" a 9 year old girl is a pedophile ? Limboot 19:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Ziauddin Sardar quotes from this section his article is an editorial not a statement of fact. Only relevant info might be political parties on the far right that are islamaphobic. If these parties are not insignificant and there views are relevant to the article then surely there is some primary source material out there eg quotes from party leaders etc. We shouldn't rely on it being fact because some guy wrote it in his opinion piece.Ferdie33 13:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed Australia from this section for the following reasons:

• Sunday Herald Sun survey had a very small data sample (580) no details on the survey are supplied at all eg specific questions etc. The current reference to the survey is comments in the Green Left Weekly publication which obviously form its name alone should convince that they are pushing a POV.
• I have located the UNSW survey here [[1]]. It is comprised of a sample of 1300 people. Whilst obviously a more worthy example than the previous survey I believe that more than one survey is required before attempting to push a POV that Australia suffers from Islamophobia
• Rest of the section deleted as POV stating why Australians would be justified in hating Muslims, not really related to "Polls and Surveys"

I believe that a survey/poll section on such a controversial topic is not a good thing unless there are multiple surveys that are reliable and can support each others findings. A survey can be twisted in many ways and a poorly planned one means little or nothing. I will make a note on the rest of the section once I have a chance to look at its references. Ferdie33 05:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reports from the EU:

• Muslims in the European Union: Discrimination and Islamophobia
• Perceptions of discrimination and Islamophobia

There's also a BBC News story on the reports. jaco♫plane 11:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lead should be a brief desciption of the topic and summary of the overall article, not a place for matters of detail. I think we should look at cutting the lead down a bit - either eliminating detail that is repeated later or at least writing in a more summary form. Detail that is not currently repeated later could be shifted. I haven't worked on this article for awhile and am unsure whose toes I'd be treading on if I decided to be bold - so I'm raising the issue here for discussion before I do anything significant. Metamagician3000 14:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This section is filled with OR/POV assessments about what is somehow an "Islamophobic" opinion, and some the articles that is used as a ref doesn't even make any allegations about anything "Islamophobic". I already started taking out some of the worst examples, and during the Christmas holidays I plan to make an effort to clean up the whole thing. -- Karl Meier 16:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good. There's a lot to be done. I've only fiddled around the edges so far. Metamagician3000 04:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've now done some significant restructuring and cleanup. Hope I haven't broken any formatting. Metamagician3000 11:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here you say that we must not use any articles that do not specifically address "Islamophobia" or relevant topics, and yet you insist upon a using irrelevant dialog from a comedian in an article which has no discussion of Islam or Islamophobia. Why must we apply two different standards? Ibn Shah 20:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Ibn Shah here, I think that Rowan Atkinson's comments would be appropriate in an article about the UK law, but not so much in a general article about Islamophobia. JACOPLANE • 2007-03-27 20:32

I made some deletions in the "responses to criticism" as it was large section based on just one article by a rather non-notable person. Mr. Hassans opinions in this single article was given a huge amount of undue weight, and believe that something had to be done about this. I hope that this relevant section will be expanded again, this time with a more diverse range of notable opinions. -- Karl Meier 16:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They certainly appear to be given massively undue weight at the moment. Metamagician3000 09:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It seems that someone has restored all the stuff that I removed earlier. Anyway, I just changed it back to a more appropriate size. -- Karl Meier 15:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with both of you here. (→Netscott) 16:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting a new Catagory of people who are anti-Islamic. Please support this as the Jewish community have listed blatent antisemitic people.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 03:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting specifically on this category, there being a category of "blatant antisemitic people" doesn't justify this either way. Nysin 10:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 27#Category:Anti-Islam sentiment. --70.51.229.211 15:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted this entire section - almost every sentence needed a citation, and it had sat there for too long with nobody providing them. Jimbo has said again and again that we are to be ruthless in deleting uncited material, so the time for this material to go was well and truly up. Also, the section is POV. It assumes that there is such a thing as Islamophobia, when the general thrust of the article is to be neutral and report on both people who make such a claim and people who claim that it is a myth. The whole idea is controversial, as the lead says, so we must make sure that everything in the article reflects this. All claims about Islamophobia need to be attributed, rather than presented as the view of the encyclopedia. Metamagician3000 13:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no historical information on Islamophobia here. What about Islamophobic views in the past? The Winston Churchill's quote:

[2]

is an example of historical anti-Islam feelings. Rumpelstiltskin223 09:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we add stuff from Ali Sina on this . He says that "Islam is "unflinchingly violent, extremist, reactionary, intolerant, anti-Western and misogynistic" and "as the disease of mankind, and the source of all these wars, terror attacks and human miseries".[18] His website features editorials that suggest "[Islam] Means Death"[19] and that the Judeo-Christian civilization must "destroy Islam".[20] He says that Muslims "have no pride, no self esteem, no dignity, no honor", and are thus "evil". He further says that Muslims are "bullies".[22]"Bless sins 15:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful of original research, though - it's not up to us to conclude that these views are examples of something called "Islamophobia" whose existence is even doubted by some people. You need to find a notable secondary source that draws such conclusions. In the Churchill case, there's no doubt that there have long been anti-Islam feelings in Europe. For example, read Othello to get the flavour of how Islam was regarded in Europe in the 17th century. But my understanding is that "Islamophobia" is supposed to be a new phenomenon, different from historical forms of anti-Islam sentiment. If anyone has compared the two we could report on that: e.g. "Foo theorises that the modern phenomenon of Islamophobia has roots in the historical antagonism towards Islam that was pervasive in Europe from the eighth century, as a result of successive wars with Arabian and Turkish conquerors." Or whatever Foo may actually have said. Metamagician3000 01:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...for which reason I am going to remove the tag. It is not at all obvious that we need a lot of background from deeper in history. Metamagician3000 03:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If irrational and baseless fear of Fascism and Fascists is Fascistophobia, then what is rational and based fear of Fascism? What a phobia becomes when the fears are well based? I belong in a sexual minority, Muslims declare and preach hate against sexual minorities and they hang gays in Iran and several other Islamic countries. My fears on Islam are well based - I take those death threats seriously. Is my disgust on Islam still a phobia? If I feel hate, disgust and fear on Fascists, am I a Fascistophobe?

Get off your soapbox. And what about Christianity with people like Fred Phelps? // Liftarn

Yes, the talk page is to discuss how to improve the article, not to vent our own feelings for or against Islam. The point of view of the anonymous user is already represented in the article, in so far as we describe the more notable denials that there is such a thing as Islamophobia, and the claims by some that it is applied to legitimate criticism of Islam. Metamagician3000 01:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the Fasciphobia comment. Is it a hate crime to promote an idealogy that more sexually restrictive than the lifestyle of homosexuals? Islam also preaches avoidance of pre-marital sex and modest dress. It is not wrong to preach self restraint (inclduing sexual restraint). If you happen to think so, perhaps it's because you assume Western individualism, promiscuity ,and decadence (as well as it may work for you) should be applied to every other person in the world. Isn't that essentially colonialism? Nlsanand 02:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - it is wrong if "promoting" involves beheadings, stonings, and maiming of the victims - something very common in the Islamic ideology... 69.86.18.17 07:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)LordRahl[reply]

Once again, we are here to document claims about the controversial phenomenon of (alleged) Islamophobia, not to vent our feelings for or against Islam, or "Western decadence", or whatever else we may happen to dislike (or even support). Metamagician3000 05:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is meant to be a summary of the body of the article. I have trimmed it back so that that is all that it is. Please do not place citation tags on statements made in the lead that are elaborated in the body of the article with appropriate citations in the correct places.

In trimming back the lead, I removed some material that looks like original research or point of view claims. If this material can be substantiated, it is still too detailed for the lead, so could any new version of it please be incorporated in some appropriate place in the body of the article. Metamagician3000 12:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So that the material that I deleted is not lost and can be worked on by the person who added it, I'll keep a copy here:

"This line of thinking holds that the term as been coined by liberal politicians to demonise and silence anyone who may voice a legitimate criticism of Islam. A construct of the term itself demonstrates a misuse of the greek root "phobia" which means fear. The accepted definition by those who use the term does not include the word "fear" in it. The term phobia has a negative connotation, implying a certain irrationality. This is possibly why those who developed and use the term Islamophobia would use it against people who are not particularly displaying any kind of "fear" of Islam."

In its current form this looks very much like someone's own research/opinion, so please don't add it back without doing work to substantiate and attribute it. Metamagician3000 12:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This criticism section is ridiculously long. No other article on prejudice/discrimination contains anything like this at all. Is this an article on anti-Islam hate or an attempt to convince us it doesn't exist?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.149.122 (talk • contribs)

There are also numerous differences between Islamophobia and other prejudices. Other prejudices like antisemitism there is no doubt about the existance of. Islamophobia is a term often used to dismiss criticism, and many doubt the existance of discrimination against muslims; they consiter discrimination against muslims as dismissing criticism of islam. Criticism of islam is not discrimination against islam, and that needs to be clear. That is why the criticism section is as long as it is.--Sefringle 04:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone doubting the "existence of discrimination against Muslims" seriously has a screw loose in their head. Criticism of Islam is certainly not prejudice/hate/discrimination against Islam but there is a serious problem with a lot of what passes today under the umbrella of "criticism of Islam" -- namely, the strawman technique of pulling together the most extreme interpretations and practices and criticizing them as representative of a religion interpreted and practiced by 1.4 billion different people. --ChefGonzo 10:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

If you think saying "islam is a religion of terrorism" is racism, you are wrong. That is not racism, especially if you can defend that claim. And to say it is is dismissing criticism. That is not discrimination. Now blowing up mosques is discrimination, but having a negative view of islam is not discrimination.--Sefringle 22:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blowing up mosques is hatred in the form of physical violence. Prejudice/hate/discrimination need not take the form of physical violence in order to be considered real or even exist. Is racism against blacks or anti-semitism against Jews, manifested in non-violent forms, not xenophobia? To pretend this kind of hate against Muslims doesn't exist is completely and utterly absurd. To say "Islam is a religion of terrorism" is a grossly exaggerated generalization and is a perfect example of the strawman technique of criticizing your preferred representation of Islam as representative of the whole. You can put together all sorts of "defenses" for that claim, but you are still working with an intellectually dishonest premise. No matter how it is practiced or what it means to 1.4 billion different people, your preferred representation of Islam is the "true" or "accurate" Islam. --ChefGonzo 00:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is dismissing criticism. You are not comparing apples to apples. There are fundamental differences between Islamophobia and antisemitism. For one, nobody will say the phraise "Jews are trying to take over the world" is criticism of Judiasm. That is just racism. But to say "Islam is about terrorism" is criticism of Islam. It is a common topic of criticism of islam, and to say otherwise is dismissing criticism of islam. Same thing with distinguishing between ligitiment criticism of islam form illigitiment criticism of islam.--Sefringle 00:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not dismissing criticism. It is criticizing and scrutinizing the foundation of the "criticism" itself. I agree that saying "Jews are trying to take over the world" is anti-semitic -- the same way I also believe that saying "Muslims are trying to take over the world" is islamophobic. I am not the type of person who would point to extremist conservative elements in the West Bank building settlments in illegally occupied territories year after year, and interpretations of the Torah that argue that God promised Israel to the Jews, and point to the Jewish lobby groups in the United States and claim that all these groups are representative of Judaism's quest to manipulate the international community in their favor. At the same time, it is exactly this line of thinking I see being used when discussing Islam. IMHO, this a severe case of double standards. --ChefGonzo 02:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are not here to settle this issue. We are only here to report the issue - some people claim that there is something that they call I"slamophobia" and which is closely analogous to, or even a form of, racism. Other people claim that this is not true or is at least exaggerated, and that the first claim is used to suppress what the people in this second camp consider to be legitimate criticism of Islam. Those are the facts. We need to present and elaborate those facts neutrally. I am dismayed to be reading a debate about which of the two camps, or schools of thought, is correct. It is not our job to adjudicate that - or to use the article to try to push one school of thought over the other - but only to present the facts in a neutral way. Metamagician3000 10:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sefringle has reverted to an older version of this article with serious POV issues a second time. His reason follows: "oversimplification giving too much meaning to the authenticity of this topic."

Among these POV issues: 1) the labeling of suspect "criticism of Islam" as "legitimate criticism." "Criticism of Islam" is a neutral phrase whereas "legitimate criticism of Islam" deems the criticism "legitimate". To classify the suspect criticism as "legitimate" or "illegitimate" clearly demonstrates bias. 2) the claim is made in the intro that Islam is not a race or ethnicity. Anyone with a basic understanding of the theories of racialization and ethnicity knows this cannot be taken as a statement of fact. 3) plenty of weasel words are involved: non-Muslims are termed a sensationalized "infidels" when this is not even an Arabic term and Islamophobia is said to be "frequently" misused to attack "all" opponents of Islamic radicalism. "Frequently" is a matter or perspective -- "sometimes" is the neutral word. "All opponents of Islamic radicalism" are obviously not accused of being Islamophobes -- think US politicians like Dennis Kucinich and Jimmy Carter, or American Muslim scholars like Muqtedar Khan or Hamza Yusuf Hanson. 4) The YouGov poll on Muslim opinion bears little if any relevance to its section or the article and it is very much "spun" in its presentation in this article. 5) There is some OR included in the intro, claiming that "-phobia" in "Islamophobia" indicates "fear" rather than hatred or "loathing" -- this is opinion, not fact. The use of the suffix "-phobia" in "homophobia" clearly demonstrates a counter example, where "-phobia" is indicative of much more than just a "fear" of homosexuals or homosexuality. 6) In the case of at least one article, the concept of Islamophobia is not even referred to. This is OR. 7) Spelling and grammatical errors. I am reverting to the previous neutral version of this article. If Sefringle reverts again, I will be reporting this action to an administrator. --ChefGonzo 00:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Going through Recent changes I came upon this dispute. The above user has no grounds to "report" Sefringle's edits but I do find them to be of poor quality and redundant. KazakhPol 00:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overlooking your massive oversimplification of the definition of racism, Islamophobia is frequently used to dismiss criticism of islam. Robert Spencer should not have been called an Islamophobe. He is just criticizing Islam, and to say otherwise is dismissing criticism, which is the goal of the concept. I can name numerous other critics who have been called an Islamophobe for criticizing Islam (virtual every single one). So yeah, the term is frequently used to dismiss criticism as racism. Frequently is not oversimplification, but instead of all opponents to Islamic radicalism, it would be better to say most opponents. Your mentioning of Hamza Yusuf is an example of ad populum. It is the same thing as mentioning the "anti-zionist jews" to say anti-zionism is not antisemitism, or those black Uncle Tom's to say the white supremacy is not racism. The previous version, while it has some errors, which I will fix, is much better and more accurate. Phobia does mean fear, and the source is here: Edmund J. Bourne, The Anxiety & Phobia Workbook, 4th ed, New Harbinger Publications, 2005, ISBN 1-57224-413-5. It is relevant because the word is islamophobia. I did not re-insurt it, because I can't find a good place to put it.--Sefringle 01:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are engaging in conspiracy theories if you're alleging there is some "goal" behind the concept of Islamophobia. You may call Robert Spencer a "critic of Islam" but in my opinion, he is a thoroughgoing Islamophobe whose work is totally founded on the same strawman logic that attempts to fashion an intolerant and extreme version of Islam as representative of the whole -- this is a basic characteristic of xenophobic discourse that surfaces again and again and again. I do not understand your assertion that my mention of Hamza Yusuf Hanson is an example of ad populum. It doesn't make any sense. Al Sharpton, John Conyers, Keith Ellison, Russ Feingold, Wesley Clark, As'ad AbuKhalil, Akbar Ahmed, Ziauddin Sardar, Tariq Ali, Reza Aslan -- all critics of radical Islam that are not considered Islamophobes. So no, "frequently" and "all" or "frequently" and "most" won't cut it. Phobia in the context of "Islamophobia" does not exclusively signify "fear." That is a case of oversimplifying the term.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/phobiax?view=uk

Look specifically for the suffix definition (-phobia): dislike, intolerance, or aversion is included. This is why "homophobia" does not define just a "fear" of homosexuals but also a dislike, intolerance, and aversion. --ChefGonzo 02:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The key phrase is "in your opinion." You are clearly dismissing criticism if you dismiss his arguemnets as racist with nothing to back it up other than you don't like the way his conclusion sounds. All of the arguements that Robert Spencer is an islamophobe can be categroized as Ad hominem. The same can be said for arguements that other people are "islamophobes." Critics of islam most certianly are frequently labeled islamophobes. Go through all the people in Category:Critics of Islam. Almost all of them have been labeled Islamophobes. That is dismissing criticism on a fundamental level , and if most certianly occurs frequently.--Sefringle 02:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the problem is not with criticism of Islamic radicalism, the problem is with criticism of Islamic radicalism passing itself off as "criticism of Islam" as a whole. One can criticize intolerant or hostile interpretations but when one fashions those versions of Islam as representative of the totality of Islam, they are being intellectually dishonest, working with a massive generalization (Reza Aslan recently pointed this out to Sam Harris in the Reason vs Religion debate on CSPAN). I don't know how many times I need to repeat that in order for it to be understood. People like Spencer have practiced this strawman approach to a fine art -- and no, that is not an ad hominem attack. It is a criticism of the very framework he uses to launch his own criticisms (in the same manner Said criticized Lewis and the Orientalists). The difference between critics of Islamic radicalism like Spencer on the one hand, and Juan Cole or Louay or Omid Safi or Carl Ernst on the other, is that they present a nuanced picture of Islam, reflective of its dynamism and diversity in belief and practice.--ChefGonzo 02:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, it is Ad hominem, but more importantly, I think the new version the administrators instilled solves our issue here (for now).--Sefringle 03:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[un-indent]In looking at what has happened to this lately, I hardly know where to start, but the most obvious thing that leaps out at me is that the lead has vastly deteriorated in quality from how it was a week ago. The lead is not a place to offer juicy highlights of the article. It should be a three-para summary of the whole thing. A good lead will need very few citations - ideally none at all - because the citations to the claims summarised will be in the body of the article. Ideally, the lead will have nothing extra, since it merely summarises the article as a whole.

I am disappointed because I had put in a lot of work to get the lead in good shape, and that part of my work has been lost. I can't see any discussion of an intention to do this on the talk page. The current lead is full of material that is not of a summary character, but refers to the detail of particular incidents.

Also, there is now a lot of material that is far, far disproportionate. Devoting huge amounts of the article to explicating the detailed claims of a non-notable individual is not appropriate.

There also seems to have been some edit warring going on. There's nothing much I can do about that, since I'm too involved with the article, but would everyone please work towards a good, neutral article that we can be proud of. Metamagician3000 10:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Sefringle has an axe to grind, and prefers biased language to neutral language. I would be more appropriate to provide well-sourced criticism of the topic, than to engage in such crude POV-pushing. --Tsunami Butler 07:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crude POV pushing? Changing alleged to percieved and labeled to consitered is definently POV pushing. Alleged and labeled do not take a stance, while percieved and consitered are taking the stance that it is true.--Sefringle 02:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment by Tsunami Butler is nothing but a rude personal attack. I suggest that we just ignore that kind of trollish comments by Mr. Tsunami Butler. -- Karl Meier 22:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a few rather major edits to this article recently, and as they have been questioned and reverted by some editors, I'll try to explain why I made them.

1. In the intro section I added that the articles subject was controversial: "A controversial neologism". I did that, because the fact that a large number of notable persons that has criticized the concept and the use of the concept, has made it a plain fact that it is controversial. I believe that the article should reflect that reality right from the beginning, in order to be neutral.

2. I removed some of the material from the "responses to the criticism" section. I have tried to explain why in one of the above sections here: Talk:Islamophobia#Hassan

3. I removed and merged some of the material from the "Country-specific polls and surveys" section. The reason I did that, was as I mentioned in my edit summaries, that the material there was almost nothing but original research. What was presented was mostly surveys that mentioned various opinions held by a percentage of those that participated in them. There was almost no mentioning or any allegations of "Islamophobia", and as such I can't see it as but original research, that we imply that these opinions are somehow "Islamophobic", by including them in our article on the subject. -- Karl Meier 23:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't particularly controversial. It's used by the United Nations, European Union, and British government, and as such has entered the mainstream. You also removed a lot of material, which is why I reverted you, including material from the California University academic, which is carefully sourced, and which is an intelligent argument, exactly the kind of thing our articles should include, whether we personally agree with it or not. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "isn't particularly controversial" ? For example, Islamofascism is a term that's entered the mainstream, and even used by the President of the United States of America. It is more than fair to call it "controversial" and its Wikipedia entry says so in the first sentence. However, to remove the word from the Islamofascism entry would be censorship of reality. The same applies here. Islamophobic is a term obviously invented to stifle legitimate criticism of Islam. A person with a REAL phobia experiences extreme anxiety and fear when dealing whatever it is they are phobic with. Can you cite one example of any of these people labeled as "islamophobes" who has some kind of panic attack when the topic turns to Islam? No. The term is obviously controversial, and on the same token should remain in this article as well.ProtectWomen 07:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slim Virgin, myself and User:Metamagician3000 have agreed with Karl Meier that there was a bit on an undue weight issue with Hassan's section. You're of the opinion that is a wrong view? (→Netscott) 00:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take another look at it, because it's a while since I read it. I liked it because it's a solid argument (writing from memory), whereas the rest of the article is really just people saying "it's real!" "no, it isn't!" I don't mean this is the fault of the editors here, by the way, just the state of the debate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-read it. I don't see how the undue weight provision applies here, as this is almost certainly representative of responses to the criticism generally; in fact, my guess is that this is the majority position, given that the acceptance of the concept of Islamophobia appears to be the majority position now. It's also, as I said, intelligent, and actually an argument, rather than a series of assertions, which is what we should be looking to include. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If arguments presented by Mr. Hassan in that article should take around eighty percent of the of space in the "Responses to criticism" section, then I believe that it is not enough that we might think that his opinions is interesting or intelligent. And it's not enough that he is a academic at the University of California either. I believe that we need to make a case that he and the opinions that he expressed in that article is somehow sufficiently notable enough to be given that amount of weight in that section. We need evidence that the opinions that he expressed in the article has been quoted and used and commented on by other notable sources. If such material doesn't exist, then I believe we should give less weight to the opinions he expressed i that specific article, and expand the article with a more diverse range of other notable opinions. As for the concept being controversial, it is perhaps true that it has to some extend entered the "mainstream" and that the majority of people that has used it has not criticized it, but that doesn't make it "not controversial". A concept is controversial if a substantial amount of notable voices has criticized it, and that is the case with "Islamophobia" as it is obvious from the "criticism" section. Another issue is that I don't understand why the "surveys" section keep getting restored. I removed what was clearly nothing but original research, and moved what was useful to more appropriate sections. -- Karl Meier 10:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karl, add more responses to the criticism if you want more voices, rather than shortening Hasan.

Regarding the "controversial" concept: in what sense is it controversial? Karl and whoever else wants to add this: are you arguing there is no prejudice against Muslims, and that it's "controversial" to say there is?

The concept may be applied controversially, but that doesn't make it controversial in and of itself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't solve the problem that his opinions is given a huge amount of undue weight. Other opinions could of course improve that section, but for now I'll leave that to others, and focus on the problems with Hassan. Did you have any evidence that justify that he and the opinions that he expressed in that article, should given the amount of weight that your version of the article does?

I am arguing that the concept of Islamophobia and the way it is being used, is controversial. The "criticism" section has a lot of evidence that makes it clear to me, that the concept has been criticized by many notable voices in the public debate. That I believe makes it a reality that it is controversial.

No. But the notable criticism of the concept itself does. -- Karl Meier 21:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that you don't like Hasan's arguments because they're strong and intelligent. The undue weight provision of NPOV doesn't apply to individuals in the way you're trying to use it. Please read the policy to see what it means. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make such guesses. We are not here to discuss personal opinions, and bad faith accusations only poisons the atmosphere. Fact is that I have seen nothing in Wikipedias policies that indicate that undue weight doesn't apply to the opinions of individuals. Could you please quote from these policies? Anyway, if you could do as I requested and provide some notable references that has mentioned the opinions that Mr. Hassan expressed in the article, then I won't mind that more weight is given to them in that specific section. Frankly, as it is now, I can't even see any evidence that Mr. Hassan himself is in any way notable enough to be given much weight in this article. -- Karl Meier 14:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could people say why the survey section is original research? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, the material that I deleted from there didn't say anything about any "Islamophobia", but just mentioned various opinions of people that participated in some specific surveys. For us to include such material is to imply that these opinions is somehow "Islamophobic", and that is original research. -- Karl Meier 21:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am OK with the survey section being there, however only sourced statistics should be mentioned, and they should use similar words to the origional source--Sefringle 02:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it is also important that the statistics that we include, is relevant to the articles subject. I believe that it is not enough, that it is relevant according to our original research. -- Karl Meier 06:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People don't have to use the word "Islamophobia," because this isn't an article about the use of the word, but about the concept. So long as the sources are clearly talking about that, it's WP:POINT to insist that the actual word must be used. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long as there is no accusations or mentioning of so-called "Islamophobia", then how is it not original research for us to suggest that these surveys are somehow relevant to a discussion about the concept of "Islamophobia"? Why do you believe that these surveys should be included in our article? -- Karl Meier 14:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: The anon that removed the slavery section was me. I forgot to log in again. -- Karl Meier 16:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is inappropriate and biased to remove citations to CAIR, which is a significant, established organization. --Tsunami Butler 22:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Significant, established organization? Are you serious? Please tell me you aren't. Guess what, the "KKK" is a significant, established organization, and everyone here would be offended if theirthe Klu Klux Klan's opinion was being cited as scholarly encyclopedic fact in an article on "anglophobia" (for example).

Sorry, CAIR is a horribly POV biased organization and is not an acceptable source. CAIR gets the boot.ProtectWomen 10:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)'ProtectWomen 07:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CAIR is horribly biased in your opinion, but it counts as a reliable source for Wikipedia. Please don't remove it again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CAIR is an extremist organization, that has many very, very controversial members and opinions. There is no way that CAIR is a WP:RS -- Karl Meier 14:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CAIR is a notable source worth quoting for their 'opinion' but their opinion should not be cited as an encyclopedic definition for "Islamophobia" as a primary source. Do you understand the difference? ProtectWomen 20:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leading ethnic activist groups are often used to give authoratative statements about their community and the perceived discrimination against them. While I actually don't think that is fair, it is common practice. The NAACP and ADL are very prominent in defending their respective communities despite their controversial nature at times. Negating CAIR as being extremist is essentially labelling the muslim-american community majority as fringe and virtually not allowing any of their opinions on wiki because their organizations do not meet WP:RS. If this site only claimed to represent the white christian west, i may agree with Karl; but it does not, and hence some voice should be given to large diverse non violent organizations on wiki, even if we may not agree with them —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fermat1999 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The trail back to your user page shows you to be some kind of administrator, which is actually shocking, given your edits on this article. Your argument that "controversial" should be removed because prejudice against muslims is real is a bit embarrassing to watch you try and justify.

You'll notice that the title of this article isn't "Prejudice Against Muslims"; it is "Islamophobia". This word, ISLAMOPHOBIA is a derogatory term applied liberally against anyone who presents legitimate criticism of Islam, in order to stifle debate and hide the problems associated with Islam. Hence, the phrase accurately describes the word "Islamophobia" as a "controversial neologism".ProtectWomen 08:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't about the term Islamophobia. It's about the concept, which is simply one of prejudice against Muslims, as the article states. The concept is used formally by the United Nations and the European Union, as well as by innumerable governments and anti-racist organizations, so that it's controversial in and of itself is a tiny-minority opinion. Its application is controversial, in that some commentators believe it's applied too widely and used to stifle criticism, but that's a separate point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those that has criticized the concept itself is not a tiny, insignificant minority. Here is just a few of the people that has criticized it and called a "wretched concept" in this case in connection with the publication of the "MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism": Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Chahla Chafiq, Caroline Fourest, Bernard-Henri Levy, Irshad Manji, Mehdi Mozaffari, Maryam Namazie, Taslima Nasreen, Salman Rushdie, Antoine Sfeir, Philippe Val, Ibn Warraq.

The fact that political organizations such as the United Nations, which is often dominated by Islamic memberstates, has used it, doesn't make the concept uncontroversial. It would be uncontroversial if there haven't been much notable criticism of it, but as it is obvious from the "criticism" section, that is not the case. -- Karl Meier 14:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments are disturbingly reminiscent of the arguments used to justify Anti-Semitism back in the 1930s. --Tsunami Butler 15:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mind WP:NPA. -- Karl Meier 15:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karl, it's not only UN committees that use the term, but the Secretary-General himself. It's used by the British government, and by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. That shows that the term and the acceptance of the phenomenon have moved into the mainstream. Just because a handful of people sign a petition, that doesn't make the concept "controversial." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the concept is controversial, then we describe the controversy around the concept, presenting fairly all significant viewpoints relevant to the controversy, without siding with any side. That is what NPOV editing is all about. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin: I have never disputed the fact that word has been used by a significant number of important individuals and organizations. That among other things makes the articles subject notable and worth having an article about, but I don't see how that should make it uncontroversial? The concept of "Islamophobia" has notable individuals and organizations supporting and using it, and it has important and notable individuals criticizing and rejecting it. What I mentioned above is not just "a handful of people that has signed a petition". It is a long list of well known and notable individuals that has rejected the concept and criticized it as what they call a "wretched concept." And they are not the only important and influential individuals that has rejected the concept. The "criticism" section list a lot of notable individuals that has also criticized the concept. Frankly, I can't see it as anything but a plain fact that it has received more than enough notable criticism to be controversial. -- Karl Meier 17:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi: I absolutely agree. -- Karl Meier 17:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karl, I've left the word "controversial" in just so I'm not reverting wholescale, but I don't agree that it should be stated in the intro as though it's a fact. As for the rest, you're removing perfectly valid, well-sourced material. For example, it's directly relevant that Kofi Annan made that statement, and it's a very good way to introduce the article. I accept that the UN is made up of sometimes controversial committees, and it's hard to regard them as reliable sources, but none of those concerns apply to the Secretary-General, who is normally very careful about how he expresses himself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that I am very pleased that you are leaving the word "controversial". Notable and substantial has been raised against the concept, and reading the "criticism" section, I can't see that as anything but a fact. Another issue is that I believe that there is still some problems left, and one of them is the issues regarding the original research material in the "surveys" section. The material I have deleted from there doesn't say anything about any "Islamophobia", and I can't see why it should be relevant to our article? Why do you believe it is relevant and why should it be included? What sources allege that these views that we present are somehow Islamophobic? If we ourselves are the only source that does that, then I can't see it as anything but a clear example of original research. You obviously believe otherwise, but I don't understand why? Regarding the Annan quote, I moved it to a more appropriate section, because I believe we should be careful about giving so much weight to a strong and controversial opinion in that specific section, and because my understanding is that the lead section should only contain a very concise summary of the material that is already used elsewhere in the article. Starting the article with an angry and highly opinionated and politicized quote that makes allegations about "widespread bigotry", also doesn't seems to be the most neutral and encyclopedic way to start an article about a controversial issue. I wouldn't expect that from a serious Encyclopedia, and I believe that our tone should be somehow more disinterested. -- Karl Meier 18:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is obviously much better off with a level-headed thinker such as Karl Meier. He is dead right- the survey section, while interesting, says absolutely nothing about "Islamophobia" and bears no relevance to this article. The word "Islamophobe" is itself a derogatory epithet and is not the same thing as a person who criticizes Islam (although many people fantasize that they are one and the same). That seems to be the source of the controversy. Some people believe that Islam should not be criticized at all- thus this word is used to lump everyone who criticizes Islam (as a religion) in with a very small number of people who are prejudiced against Muslims or perhaps racist. If someone says that Islam (a religion, not a race) is oppressive to women, the Runnymede trust would call that person an "Islamophobe"... But we can say "Christianity is oppressive to gays" and nobody jumps up to call that person a "Christianophobe". This kind of backwards thinking is quite sad.

Islamophobia is the new Scarlet Letter, but with a twist- the critic of Islam has not even done anything wrong. That is why Islamophobia is a wretched concept. ProtectWomen 20:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your implication that others in this discussion are not "level-headed" is not helpful. JACOPLANE • 2007-03-5 21:42

At anytime, anywhere, anyplace on this earth, that a compliment is being paid, it is at the expense of insulting someone else. If I say to you, "you have a beautiful smile" this is only possible because someone somewhere has a horrible smile to serve as a reference point. Otherwise every single person in existence would have a precisely equal "neutral" smile, neither beautiful, nor offensive.

If I pay someone in this discussion page a compliment, and another party feels excluded- or for that matter, feels that the compliment is paid at their expense-- I shall have nothing to feel bad about. We all make choices, we all have our place in the universe (which thrives on dualities; the Chinese call it Yin and Yang). Some people stand on the side of reason and logic. We know this to be true because there are others who side with illogical emotions and desire to see reality not as it is, but as they would like it to be. Otherwise, Jacoplane, I appreciate your concern in the matter. ProtectWomen 07:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First I want to say that I am pretty disappointed to see that SlimVirgin has now rejected the compromise after a week with a stable article, and has started reverting again. The issues that I and other editors has raised above regarding original research material and the undue weight given to the opinions of a relatively unknown commentator, still needs to be addressed. -- Karl Meier 11:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must also say that I feel that a revert a week after the last major edit to the article, having only the edit summary "no way" as an explanation is not the best way to restart a debate. -- Karl Meier 11:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the page is protected, we have a chance to get this ironed out. Karl, I conceded "controversial" to you. I'm prepared to concede the country-wide polls. Does anyone else have a view on that?

I think we should keep Kofi Annan in the lead, and keep the section from Hasan for the reasons I've argued above. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree with Karl and other editors that unless polls and other sources are specifically discussing "Islamophobia" it is a bit original researchish to be assigning the term to such things. (→Netscott) 13:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As before I am willing to accept all of Hassan, even though I still believe that his opinions is given more weight than what is reasonable. I can also accept including Annan in the intro section, but to address the problems that I have mentioned above, I believe that we should edit it a bit so that the tone of the intro section remain what it should be: Neutral, encyclopedic and disinterested. -- Karl Meier 14:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a compromise, I would accept a lead section that look like this:

Islamophobia is a controversial neologism defined as a prejudice against or demonization of Muslims. ^[1][2][3][4] The term dates back to the late 1980s ^[5] or early 90s, ^[6] although its use has increased since the September 11, 2001 attacks. ^[7][8]

The British Runnymede Trust described Islamophobia in 1997 as the view that Islam has no values in common with other cultures; is inferior to the West; is a violent political ideology rather than a religion; that its criticisms of the West have no substance; and that discriminatory practices against Muslims are justified. ^[9]

British writer and academic Kenan Malik has criticized the concept, calling it a "myth." Malik argues that it confuses discrimination against Muslims with criticism of Islam, and is used to silence critics of the religion, including Muslims who want to reform it. ^[10] The novelist Salman Rushdie was among the signatories to a statement in March 2006 calling Islamophobia a "wretched concept that confuses criticism of Islam as a religion and stigmatisation of those who believe in it." ^[11]

The term has been used by a number of individuals and organisations, including Kofi Annan, who voiced his opinion on a UN conference in 2004: "[W]hen the world is compelled to coin a new term to take account of increasingly widespread bigotry, that is a sad and troubling development. Such is the case with Islamophobia." ^[6][12] -- Karl Meier 14:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I like Kofi Annan right up front is, first, that he's an authoritative source, and secondly, because we call it a neologism, and then we have a source saying why it was coined. So in terms of good narrative flow, it's a good quote for the start of the lead. However, I'd be willing to go along with Karl's suggested compromise lead.

I'm also willing to see country profiles removed in the hope we can keep Hasan. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great then. With no remaining issues, I guess we then have a compromise. I will request that the article is unprotected. -- Karl Meier 16:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I personally think that Islamaphobia is used as a way to stifle debate in some circumstances (with limited to great success in different countries), the term itself is not controversial. At least, not anymore controversial than the term anti-semitism (which has come to mean dislike of jews). Islamophobia is simply a reference to dislike of muslims. Simple. The term is not controversial for it's existance (yes karl, there are people out there that dislike muslims; reading your previous edits I suspect you may be one yourself). The use of islamophobia as an epithet to stifle political debate is very real, but that concept is an article in and of itself. Similarly to how the accusation of anti-semitism to stifle debate in some circles may be controversial, but the term itself is not as the hatred of jews is a real phenomenom.

Fermat1999 16:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My or your personal opinions is not the subject of our discussion here, and the fact that there has been raised a lot of notable criticism of the concept itself (see the "criticism" section) makes it a fact that it is indeed controversial. -- Karl Meier 00:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but a quick count was 12 Delete, 5 Delete/Rename, 2 Keep/Rename and 7 Keep. It seems a consensus was reached, and that was (depending on how you count it) 17 delete, 7 rename, and 9 keep. Hard to tell with all the discussion that had no votes but it looks like this should be deleted 17 or renamed 16 (if we count the keeps as renames) Or 24 delete/rename and 16 keep/remain.  ??? Just wanted to mention it.

To chime in here, I'm at a loss to explain how somebody can have a phobia about a religion or political or etc system. Cathli-phobia? Democra-phobia? Seems a rather odd word. It seems to be an ad hominem pre-emptive strike. Are we saying all fear of a belief system or method of behavior is irrational? I'm sure plenty of folks were scared of Ghengis Kahn; Ghengis-Kahn-a-phobia? lol But it is being used, so should be "explained" here I suppose. Sln3412 19:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are following the Etymological fallacy. The roots of a word does not result in it's actual meaning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy

Terms develop under bizarre circumstances. Anti-semitism seems like a bizarre way to describe anti-jewish sentiments because semites encompass alot more than jews. But it's a term that has developed with time and has become standard as a description of anti-jewish behaviour/sentiments. Ditto with the term Holocaust (a term developed post WWII and that took time to fully take hold). Similary "African-American" or "Asian-American" when those terms were first developed in the 1960s. Islamophobia, in the modern era, simply means disliking muslims...even if the word phobia is in it and the etymology does not make sense. The meaning of a word is not always the sum of it's parts.

I suspect that the term is being attacked because the legitimacy of anti-islamism is being denied by a few people. Analogy is not perfect, but it is somewhat similar to those that deny racism exists against blacks or whatever ethnic group who's concerns a person wants to belittle. I'm afraid that people like Karl simply want to impose their strong POV in this article for a word that has more or less become a standard term for discribing anti-islamism. Accepting the minority view of Karl's is similar to accepting white supremacists/nationalists view about the "alleged holocause" or "the controversial term anti-semitism". It is unacceptable.

Fermat1999 14:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please mind Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy and remain civil. -- Karl Meier 16:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh? Why are persons who have critics on the ideology islam then called mental in sane ? ("phobia" means a mental illness in case you didn't know that) Limboot 16:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that the Kofi Annan quote should be included in the lead. I think it adds very, very little to the article. Furthermore, Kofi Annan is not an expert on Islam (I don't even think he is a Muslim, though I could be wrong about that). Is Kofi Annan's views on Islamophobia any more notable than Ban Ki-moon's views or Boutros Boutros-Ghali's views on the subject? I propose the removal of the third sentence of the first pargaph of the article. --GHcool 20:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with this view. His view is only notable in that he's led the U.N. It would be more logical if a scholarly source on the subject was quoted in the lead. (→Netscott) 20:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. If nobody disagrees by Tuesday, I'm going to delete the Kofi Annan sentence from the lead. --GHcool 18:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GHcool, I restored it because it was part of the compromise lead agreed to. It's clearly relevant what a very recent Secretary-General of the United Nations says, and even more so given that he's explaining how it's a new term, which is what our lead says, so it speaks directly to that issue: that it's new and that it's notable. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin, I respectfully disagree. I do not understand your reasoning. The quote certainly relates to Islamophobia and was said by a recent UN secretary-general (and non-Muslim), but why should it necessarily follow that the quote should be included in the lead. As a counterargument, I ask you if you would accept this quote from Kofi Annan in the lead of the anti-Semitism or new anti-Semitism article: "Anti-Semitism has flourished even in communities where Jews have never lived, and it has been a harbinger of discrimination against others. The rise of anti-Semitism anywhere is a threat to people everywhere. Thus, in fighting anti-Semitism we fight for the future of all humanity."[3] I would say that although Annan's view might be worth mentioning within the article, he is not an expert on the subject or even a victim or perpetrator of the phenomenon and so it does not seem logical that a quote from Annan would get such a prominent place in the lead. --GHcool 03:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall there being a consensus on the Kofi quote, but I have to agree with GHcool 100%. Kofi Annan was little more than a corrupt politician who left his position at the U.N. in disgrace. Kofi Annan is not any kind of authoritative source on Islamophobia. In fact his family made lots and lots of money from the oil-for-food scandal, thanks to a sunni-muslim named Hussein- as far as he is concerned, Islam is the bee's knees, it made his family rich. I'm not saying the quote should not be included somewhere, but the lead is an inappropriate place for Kofi's comments. On the same token, George W. Bush is not quoted in the lead on Islamofascism even though he's made comments on the term. I think it is good that Bush is NOT in the lead over at that article, we should take that example to heart on this article as well. --ProtectWomen 18:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for agreeing with me, ProtectWomen, but I prefer we stay on the topic of this article and not criticize Kofi Annan in aspects of his life that do not pertain to the quote. I'm sorry if that seems rude, but I don't want to get too far off topic. That being said, if SlimVirgin or anybody else that disagrees with me does not respond to me on this talk page, I will delete the Kofi Annan quotation from the lead on Friday, March 30 (Los Angeles time). --GHcool 02:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

here. Thanks. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 17:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there such a category? If not, I'd like to create one.Bless sins 21:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was one but after discussion it was renamed to Category:Anti-Islam sentiment. This based upon the fact that the word "Islamophobia" is a neologism. (→Netscott) 21:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. A neologism is phrase which has been recently created and applies to new concepts. Why does that violate criteria for having its own category?Bless sins 02:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that through adoption and utilization of a given neologism Wikipedia loses its neutrality about it. As the following links demonstrate the term "Islamophobia" is still entering into the English lexicon:

1. Cambridge dictionary for "Islamophobia"
2. Merriam Webster's for "Islamophobia"
3. MSN Encarta for "Islamophobia"
4. Newbury House of American English for "Islamophobia"
5. Infoplease for "Islamophobia"
6. Factmonster for "Islamophobia"

(→Netscott) 05:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the proper place to discuss this would be Category talk:Anti-Islam sentiment--Sefringle 06:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zbigniew Brzezinski (John Hopkins University & Former National Security Advisor) and Diana Ralph (Carleton University) have both written/spoken about how Islamophobia is provoked and used by neoconservatives in the US administration.ChefGonzo 01:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is just a bit hypocritical on Brzezinski's part, since he helped get the ball rolling with his "Arc of Crisis" stuff back in the Seventies. This article ought to also mention Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington as prime movers behind the emergence of this phenomenon. --Tsunami Butler 00:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found a good reference that mentioned "Islamophobia" in relation to Rowan Atkinson's view opposing the Religious hatred law. Was it not enough? (→Netscott) 00:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a solid citation. Atkinson's name is in the headline and his remark is in the lead. The article you cited ends with:

Shami Chakrabarti, director of civil liberties group Liberty, said: "There is a distinction between definitions of racial hatred and religious hatred. One refers to an immutable characteristic about which there is little debate to be had, and the other to a body of ideas.

"People in a democracy have the right vigorously to debate, and even denigrate, others’ ideas."

If passed, the Bill would "excite all sorts of expectations that no sensible Attorney General could ever meet", she said, warning it was "likely to make the existing problem of Islamophobia worse, not better".

Mr Marshall-Andrews predicted that giving the Attorney General the final say on whether prosecutions go ahead would turn him into "the whipping boy for religious bigotry", inundated with complaints from fundamentalist groups and then lambasted for turning them down.

Islamophobia is specifically mentioned. This seems like something we should include. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is enough for me. Ibn Shah 01:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Jehanzeb Hasan, a mere research assistant without any claim to importance, deemed notable enough for his views to be presented in this article? Why is furthermore 90% of the "Response to criticism" section devoted to his views? What is his photo doing in this article? And why is Media Monitors Network where his opinion piece was published deemed a reliable source? Beit Or 20:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. Who included the section in the first place? I'll start by removing his photo, as it is irrelevant. --ProtectWomen 20:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia is an insult of people who are against islam. Therefore it is in my opinion oblied for an independant encyclopedy to link to some reply as Matthias Storme's "fobomania. Limboot 05:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fobomania Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fobomanie Limboot 16:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is critism on christianity or judaism also discrimination ? Limboot 04:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism is not just "critism" or Judaism... // Liftarn

Exactly. Therefore antisemitism is hatred against an etnic group of humans. Critism against the ideology islam is no etnic hatred. I hope you know that atheist and christian Jews also disappeared in the gaschambers so denying of the holocaust is no part of pro-islam propagandists. Limboot 17:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liftarn, WP:DNFT.--Agha Nader 23:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the discussion level on wiki ? Limboot 04:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophilia is a controversial neologism. Islamophilia is an opposite term for an other controversial neologism (Islamophobia). Islamophilia is used for non-muslims who are ,according for example Daniel Pipes to much sympathysing with the ideology Islam. The highest level the word islamophilia reached was a cover article of Dutch opinion magazine Elsevier about the Quran journalist Gerry van der List used the word "islamophile" in the quote "the islamophile theologe Karen Armstrong.

See also PhobomaniaLimboot 04:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, when the article is unprotected again, you could write a section about it in this article? It seems very much relevant to include information regarding these issues here. -- Karl Meier 06:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IF it gets un-protected. Hopefully that can happen if we can prove it is notable enough.--Sefringle 06:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course good sources will have to be used, and the notability of the issue will have to be established. However, I don't see any reason why we should doubt that the article will eventually be unprotected, and it is in our power to speed up the process by working towards a compromise. Sefringle, what is your thoughts about the suggestion for a compromise that has been made in the section below. If you can agree to it, and if you don't have any further concerns, I will ask that the article is unprotected. -- Karl Meier 12:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KazakhPol, can you please explain your reasons behind your POV pushing edit to this page?--Sefringle 05:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am biased towards not including redirects when the link already redirects on its own. Unfortunately, it has affected my edits. I also have a strong anti-random comma POV that I push. KazakhPol 05:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am specifically referring to your removals of the word "alleged" when referring to Islamophobia.--Sefringle 05:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sefringle, I would like to address your persistent trolling.Rokus01 08:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I disagree with his edits he is not trolling. Sefringle and Karl Meier, If the only part of my edits you disagree with are the removing of "alleged" then please re-add "alleged" rather than doing complete reversions. I oppose including "alleged" in the section headings because the alleged-ness of the instances discussed is made clear within the paragraph. Note that I am usually accused of having an anti-Islam bias. KazakhPol 16:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

guess you got a new review to add that says just the opposite!--Sefringle 04:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we agree to keep the changes I made except for the removing of alleged in the section titles? KazakhPol 23:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged needs to be in the section titles, because Islamophobia is contraversial, and to label certian views or actions as islamophobic is POV pushing, as many would disagree that such actions or views are actually a prejudice act.--Sefringle 03:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that alleged is needed. We are here to present notable opinions, not to endorse them as facts. As for KazakhPol's suggestion regarding a compromise, my answer is no. The other sections titles will have to remain as they are too. If that is accepted, then I will agree to the compromise. -- Karl Meier 18:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what I mean. The previous section titles are fine. I agree. KazakhPol 04:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great. If there is no other concerns by anyone here (NPOV related or otherwise), I guess we can request that the article is unprotected and adjust it according to this agreement. -- Karl Meier 06:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the first place we could mention that "islamophobia" isn't a part of the dictionary of the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary "just like the opposing term islamophilia". Anyone a more independent suggestion ? Limboot 16:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section seems to have some serious problems, especially due to the fact that the majority of its content or in other words everything except the first part which discuss the Runnymede Trust definition, doesn't seems to discuss or make any attempts to define the concept of Islamophobia. Everything except the part that discuss the Runnymede Trust definition seems to be off-topic and largely irrelevant to the subject that section is supposed to be discussing. I suggest that when the article is unprotected all the off-topic content should be either be moved to more appropriate sections or if in specific cases that is impossible to do properly, be deleted or moved to the articles discussion page. Anyone that agree, disagree or have any comments regarding this? -- Karl Meier 18:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of it should be deleted. KazakhPol 04:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Much of it seems to be pontification on the subject of race as opposed to an attempt to actually define the term. But I wouldn't chop everything except Runnymede without also having another source to add that directly attempts to define the term; some of the sources Rokus added to Criticism of Islam recently could perhaps be mined for this. - Merzbow 07:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that more than just one definition should be included, and perhaps we could start by moving Stephen Schwartz and his definition to this section? -- Karl Meier 07:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like his definition, but I know heat is going to be generated by those who don't think FrontPageMag should be cited anywhere (a bogus argument, it's clearly notable in the genre of modern political commentary about Islam and the Middle East). I'd suggesting including that plus something else so we have three sources; I would then vigorously defend the FPM cite as an alternative definition of the term by those from the right (who are often accused of Islamaphobia themselves). - Merzbow 07:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is reasonable to consider the definition by Stephen Schwartz to be an alternate definition from those that are often accused of Islamophobia themselves. His article might have been published in FrontPageMag, but fact is that he is an Islamic convert and a practicing Muslim, and I find it hard to imagine a situation where anyone would call him an "Islamophobe". Reading the article it seems to me that he is defending the way that the concept is currently being used by among others Islamic organizations. This being said, I support that another (notable) definition should be added. Until we find such a notable definition, I believe it we should stick to the two definitions that we got, and clean up the section by moving the off-topic content there to other sections (if and where possible). -- Karl Meier 13:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me, I was just trying to anticipate possible objections. - Merzbow 17:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this section was fine before Karl Meier started to destroy information. The "Runnymede Trust definition" of Islamophobia is not just descriptive: Islamophobia was obviously coined to label a certain kind of thinking to be bad. Thus, the concept of good and bad and acceptance considering this definition (or practice) should be included to provide context. Without, this definition section will be as tainted as the word Islamophobia was intended to be. The Seabrook reference("Religion as a fig leaf for racism", The Guardian, July 23, 2004:"Islamophobia is the only form of prejudice to which the middle class can readily admit: a religion which is perceived as advocating repression of women and hatred of gays renders acceptable forms of prejudice that would be unthinkable if directed against any other social group.") could be moved to footnote Seabrook when is quoted later on in this section. Rokus01 07:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Islam sentiment was recently deleted per the CFD. Can someone remove the category?--Sefringle 04:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Avi 19:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So where are we talking about? Wiki.en is very non-independant by placing an article about "islamophobia" and then also by deleting every link to the opposing "neogolisms" Islamophilia and phobomania (and even banning me for it) Limboot 16:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked for WP:3RR, it's nothing personal. As for the other two articles, they have/are being deleted because sources were not provided in accordance with WP:NEO. - Merzbow 17:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange that Islamophilia and Phobomania are accepted articles on dutch wiki. Futher I had a link for Islamophilia out of the largest dutch opinion magazine (Elsevier) but I you keep deleting. Limboot 18:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see the article before it was deleted but one link isn't enough to source an article on a neologism. WP:NEO is applied pretty strictly; multiple English-language sources are needed. - Merzbow 18:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now seeked for a quartor for an hour but I can't now not find the link. Congratulations ! 18 june 2005 Gerry van der List Elsevier "koran een verontrustend boek". Not a link to (the cover article) of Elsevier but http://ayaan.web-log.nl/ayaan/2005/06/de_koran_een_ve.html "the islamophile theologe Karen Armstrong". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Limboot (talk • contribs) 18:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sweet Baby Jesus, when SlimVirgin is the moderate in the discussion on Anti-Muslim prejudice left manning the wall against the hordes of editors who want to essentially say there is no islamophobia you have a funked up discussion. I pity Muslims with their POV that is invisible in this forum.

The opening paragraph in this article is tortured and ridiculous. Islamophobia is not "described by some" as a prejudice against Muslims: I can find it on dictionary.com [4] or in Webster's for God's sake. What is the malfunction here?

The opening paragraph might lead you to believe (and some of the comments of editors here, too) that its debatable whether there even is anti-Muslim prejudice anywhere. Please tell me no one here honestly believes that. And if that prejudice exists, and a word is already in circulation to describe it, why not?

I think, in the "critics" section, that if any of those authors had said what they said about Judaism instead of Islam that material would be used as evidence of anti-semitism. Try subbing the word "Jews" for "Muslims" and "Judaism" for "Islam" and see what it sounds like. MarkB2 16:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism is no criticism on an ideology, like "islamophobia" is. Or do you really believe every Jew is a judaist (and not e.g. an a christian or atheist or theistic atheist?). So "islamophobia" is controversial Limboot 16:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MarkB2: Please cut down on the personal remarks. The concept of "Islamophobia" is controversial because of all the notable criticism that has been raised against it. See the article. As for the first definition that is mentioned in the first sentence of the article, it is not the only one that exist. There are other definitions and some of them are much more broad than the first one that we mention. -- Karl Meier 18:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Limboot: I don't think criticizing Islam as an ideology constitutes "Islamophobia," nor is Islamophobia defined by modern dictionaries as such. It is defined as the irrational fear or hatred of Muslims. Anyone who criticizes another as an "Islamophobe" because he/she criticizes the practices and beliefs of Muslims is misusing the term.

Misusing the term? The term "islamophobia" has just been invented to criminalize persons who criticise (the ideology) islam Limboot 15:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karl: I would apologize, but in reviewing my remarks I wasn't sure how asserting that many editors (like yourself, from what I can glean on this discussion page) "want to essentially say there is no islamophobia" and thus concluding that the discussion is "funked up" constitutes something unduly offensive. You do have a problem with the entire "concept" of Islamophobia, no? And is it unduly offensive for a user to say he thinks a discussion is "funked up?" I found it amusing that SlimVirgin, someone who typically advocates for Jewish people, is the one left to defend Islamophobia as a serious issue.

You are right, however, in ascertaining that I consider your views on the subject to be inaccurate, wrong, whatever. I agree with SlimVirgin: the application of the term "Islamophobia" may be controversial, but the concept of the term isn't: anti-Muslim bigotry exists and you can find a simple definition on Dictionary.com of what that concept is.

I'm not saying the critics of the term should be ignored; I'm just saying their views shouldn't be in the header. MarkB2 09:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. At least we can say it is controversial and the word "islamophobia" is not to find in an important dictionary ("like the opposing term islamophilia (so a link to the opposing controversial term). Limboot 15:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term Islamophobia is a logical fallacy. If one means to speak against anti-Muslim bigotry than they should have invented the term "Muslimophobia" or perhaps "Anti-Muslimism". Islam is an ideology; it is not a human being. Muslims are human beings, but they are not a "race" of human beings. Muslims around the world are all races, so trying to pin anti-Muslimism as a form of racism is also tough to do.

The term 'islamophobia' was invented in order to squelch criticism of Islam itself and only indirectly applies to Muslims (as practitioners of Islam). However, one could easily be against the ideology of Islam without indiscriminately hating all Muslims. In fact, among critics of Islam, most I have seen have a problem with the religion and not the innocent members of the religion.

Let me give an example using another "religion" . Many of us know the story of Lisa McPherson, a scientologist. This woman was a devout scientologist but we don't dislike her for that. In fact we care about her and despise the "religion" that ultimately was responsible for her extreme suffering and early demise. Scientology is an ideology- a bizarre and destructive one. However, we aren't bigoted against scientologists; rather, these people are victims of a terrible ideology that must be exposed for what it is. The only way to help protect humans against scientology is to disseminate the truth and educate others about the ideology. Perhaps one fortunate thing critics of scientology have on their side is that "Scientologophobia" is not a particularly catchy phrase. Therefore, critics of scientology don't have to worry about being unfairly attacked and branded with a word in their philanthropic efforts to help humanity as do critics of Islam. --ProtectWomen 16:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. "Innocent members" doesn't make sense (and implies there is something very nasty about Islam) because Islam is not some sort of club where the members are unaware of the leaders' plans. There are no leaders in Islam. Fatwas aren't binding. If you've got a problem with the ideology, you've automatically got a problem with the practitioners, as the ideology is meaningless if no one applies it. By the way, critics of Scientology have to worry about being sued. Sazielt c 20:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Who are the real islamophobians is deleted ! See my talk page Limboot 19:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Limboot and ProtectWomen: I think it's becoming more clear to me what our point of disagreement is. Both of you assert that the term "Islamophobia" was invented to squelch criticisms of the practice of Islam. That's quite a conspiracy you're positing. I just don't see any evidence for it. The term (according to the article) orginated in 1976 from the Oxford English dictionary types, and the Runnymede people cited in the article seem to be (as are their donors) progressive, liberal British politicians, not some shadowy cabal of Saudi Arabian advocates.

Regardless of who coined the phrase, the definition of the phrase seems clear. I thought the dictionary.com reference would suffice to clarify the situation, but apparently not, as it is not an "important" enough dictionary. Is the OED important enough?

Protect Women: You said the term is illegitimate because "If one means to speak against anti-Muslim bigotry than they should have invented the term 'Muslimophobia' or perhaps 'Anti-Muslimism'." You seem to buying the Etymological Fallacy, similar to those that might argue that "Anti-Semitism" is a fallacious term becuase Arabs are semites, too.

The crux of our dispute seems to be the definition of the word "Islamophobia." I maintain the definition is irrational bigotry against Muslims, while some others maintain it has been defined as a smear against critics of Islam. This alternate definition has never been described as an accurate description of the term by any dictionary, right? If dictionary.com is insufficient, would the OED definition be authoritative? MarkB2 22:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I got the New Oxford American Dictionary here..."Islamophobia (n): a hatred or fear of Islam or Muslims, especially when feared as a political force." Well. That's different. Perhaps we should describe different definitions of the term, instead of giving one definition and then calling it "controversial." MarkB2 01:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is controversial is not the definition, but the concept. The existance of prejudice against muslims is a controversial concept.--Sefringle 02:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get outta here! Are you saying you doubt that anti-muslim prejudice exists anywhere? MarkB2 04:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he is saying that in certain instances acts labeled as anti-Muslim may not be that simple or even based on Islamophobic beliefs. In this case his personal views on the subject are not an extension of how we should proceed with editing this article and are therefore irrelevant. KazakhPol 05:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before you (anyone) remove the global template, please consider that the views mentioned in the introduction are:

• Runnymede Trust - British think tank
• Kenan Malik - British writer and academic
• Salman Rushdie - British-Indian essayist and fiction author

As you can see the British view is well-presented. Others are not. KazakhPol 04:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here are some links I found with a quick googling. Islamophobia in the US (Pakistan), Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia – two sides of the same coin (Denmark), American Muslims beginning to fear that 'Islamophobia' is gripping the U.S. (USA), Drive to combat Islamophobia (Kuwait), Web site tackles Islamophobia, promotes understanding (USA), Islamic countries’ FMs to discus Islamophobia (Turkey), Complacency and hatred (Canada)... So it can be made global. // Liftarn

Islamophobia and anti-semitism two kinds of the same coin ? Anti-semitism is because of etnic hate. "Islamophobia" is only critism on a "religion" (ideology). Shame your self !!! Limboot 11:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually thay are simmilar. Judaism is also a religion (or "ideology" as you like to say). // Liftarn

Yes judaism is a religion. But all (etnic) Jews are not judaists. E.g. Albert Einstein was an atheist, not judaist. And hunderd of thousands of Jews who were killed in W.W. II because of antisemitism. Limboot 12:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the tag placed on this article is unhelpful and unnecessary. The article is written from British sources, but there's nothing nationalist about the "arguments" it presents. New (or not much edited) articles are bound to suffer from this effect - that does not make them bad articles (nor does it make them POV). As far as I can tell, everything in this article could have been placed there by any nationality, using sources from quite different sources, and the result would still be a good article, like this one. The solution is to add more diverse (hopefully also better) material, not to criticise what is in there. (as of this moment, there is badly written Danish and Dutch material in there, which I hope someone improves or removes quite shortly).

I came here because I was looking at Anti-Americanism and don't much like the way it is written. This Islamophobia article may not be perfect, but it is much, much better than Anti-Americanism. PalestineRemembered 15:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from my talk page

Limboot 17:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive content to Wikipedia, as you did to Islamophobia. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Liftarn 08:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, it is a copy from dutch wiki. Do you understand what means "controversial" instead of acting with your prejudgements. Limboot 08:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Wikipedia is not a reliable source. You simply can't butcher an article just to get your point accross. // Liftarn

Even a link given ]],^[13] Limboot 09:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a link. So..? // Liftarn

Isn't it a reliable source. Can you answer what you do understand under "controversial" ?

Not that reliable. Please see Talk:Islamophobia. // Liftarn

Do you know where you are talking about ? Is an article of an author himself not reliable enough what he sees as "islamophobia" ?? Limboot 09:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is only reliable as a source to what he thinks. // Liftarn

Of what he thinks ? "Islamophobia" is only a word. But are you a psychiatrist of what mr Efrain really thinks !!!! Limboot 11:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you can't win.

== 3RR on Islamaphobia (again) ==

Now you have reverted more than three times today - you're in violation of WP:3RR. // Liftarn

Are you not only a user? Nothing to find about admin or moderator at your userpage. And what is your I.Q. because of your writing that "islamophobia" (concerning a religion) is the same as "antisemitism" (etnic) ? Limboot 12:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPA. // Liftarn

No personal attacks. Why are you defending the term islamophobia in the first place. And why should I not ask something because of the fact you cant see the difference between critism on a ideology and hate because of etnics. I didn't know Goebbels had been in discussion with 2 months old Jewish babies he killed in Auschwich ? Limboot 12:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion because of this

Islamophobia is a controversial neologism. Defined by some as a prejudice against, or demonization of, Muslims.^[14][15][16] Other people are seeying islamophobia as a controversial neologism introduced to characterise critics on islamic issues as an irrational and persistant fear (phobia) ^[13]. As a controversial neogolism the word islamophobia is not to find in e.g. the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary or Dutch Dikke van Dale, just like it's opposing controversial neogolism islamophilia.

Limboot 12:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it is found in The Oxford English Dictionary, in September 2002, along with Jedi, and Bluetooth. The OED is arguably canonical, even definitive, in terms of the English language. - Tiswas^(t/c) 14:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See under antisemitism .

So

Danish politician Bashy Quraishy have written that islamophobia and antisemitism are two sides of the same coin.^[17]. Also according wikipedian definition also critism of judaism is characterized to antisemitism^[18]

Of course the mods are to busy to delete the article in stead of discussing. Wikipedia insist on that definition of antisemitism. So take the consequence: islamophobia = antisemitism is no news, (according wiki of course) antisemitism —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Limboot (talk • contribs) 17:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Does such a category already exist, or is there one similar to it?Bless sins 22:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a rhetorical question? You have been here (Wikipedia) for a pretty long time now. Why would you ask whether or not it exists when you can plainly see it does? Are you trying to make a point? KazakhPol 22:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It did exist, but per the previous CFD, it was deleted.--Sefringle 02:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, as I read through this article, I was struck by the degree to which the article is dedicated to ideas criticle of the very concept that anti-Islamic sentiment can exist. In fact, the article seems to question the reality of discrimination against individuals and minority groups of people who are Muslim. I believe this needs to be discussed, and I added the appropriate tag by which to garnish the needed attention. Padishah5000 00:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. When both Dictionary.com and the Oxford American Dictionary define "Islamophobia" essentially the same way it is ridiculous to write a wikipedia article saying "some say it is defined this way," but we can't just relay that information because Salman Rushdie and Kenin Malik think the issue is exaggerated or confused. The BBC and here routinely uses the word in the received manner, as does the National Review, the AP, CNN, Newsweek, you name it. But a little group of writers get together and say the term is misused and overused and suddenly we can't even define the term. I wonder if I wandered over to the antisemitism page and called the entire "concept" of antisemitism "controversial" how they would take that. If you actually read Malik, by the way, he doesn't deny that the prejudice exists, he just thinks the term is overused and misused. MarkB2 20:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, 100%. Padishah5000 07:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point that "islamophobia" should not be called as one site of the same coin as antisemitism NOW ANTISEMITISM IS MISUSED AS THE SAME AS CRITISM ON JUDAIC RELIGION ("antisemitism is critism on jews as a religious group (instead of an etnic and racial group). See antisemitism. POV Tag there even deleted so critism on judaism religion is for the fully 100 % seen as "antisemitism" !!!!! Limboot 20:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, antisemitism is prejudice against Jews as a race, and someimes against jews as a religous group. There is a difference between prejudice and criticism. Prejudice against a religion means persecution or hatrid of a person becasue of their race/religion. Criticism of a religion is just presenting arguements for why a religion is stupid or evil; it is not the same as saying all people of a certian religion are stupid or evil.--Sefringle 14:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very fine line between criticism and prejudice. The current article appears to be an example of that. Padishah5000 07:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, seeing how many critics of Islam are wrongfully accused of being Islamophobes.--Sefringle 05:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term "alleged" is listed as a "weasel world" WP:WTA in Wikipedia's list of such terms, and thus should be removed. Padishah5000 21:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use is allowed per this paragraph:

Alleged (along with allegedly) and purported (along with purportedly) are different from the foregoing in that they are generally used by those who genuinely have no predisposition as to whether the statement being cited is true or not. Newspapers, for instance, almost universally refer to any indicted but unconvicted criminal as an alleged criminal. Therefore, there is no neutrality problem with using them. However, there may be a problem of ambiguity—they should only be used where the identity of the alleger is clear.

It is perfectly acceptable, indeed NPOV demands, that we use "alleged Islamaphobia" to title sections that list allegations of Islamaphobic entities or acts where the identities of allegers are stated (and they are stated here). A title like "Publications and publishers known to be Islamophobic" is just unacceptable, since it states allegations as fact. - Merzbow 23:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I believe the use of such words as alleged is a direct POV violation, and should not be allowed in the article. I also was unable to find the Wikipedia policy guideline that you cited. I believe in keeping the Wikipedia project as bias free as possible, and when such words are used, it appears to me to detract from the overall purpose of the project. 71.107.126.196 05:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Merzbow on this one. Alleged needs to be here to be NPOV, since this topic is very controversial. What is islamophobic and what is not is highly disputed, and as such, alleged is needed for NPOV. And annon, please sign in.--Sefringle 05:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is quite simple. When something is presented as an allegation and not as a fact in the text, then the heading must also present it as an allegation and not as a fact. It is absurd to suggest otherwise. - Merzbow 05:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This article does use questionable terminology(amongst other things). The use of the term -alleged- has been inserted for the sole purpose of raising a doubt in the reader's mind that Islamophobia(a fancy word for anti-Islamic sentiment) even exists in Europe. In fact, this articles written message appears to be the belief that anti-islamic attitudes may not even exist. Padishah5000 07:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Merzbow. May PalestineRemembered criticise Islam? Alleged means "charges have been credibly asserted", but it also means "charges have not been proven". WP:BLP says it's vital that people not be slurred. We run the risk of stifling debate and helping to create a "thought-crime". PalestineRemembered 17:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a kind of silly to use "alleged" in the title, and it fails to be "neutral" (if such would be the intention of the article). Instead the article should demonstrate the real meaning and application of the word. Rokus01 09:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptable use of the word alleged, as per WP:WTA, absolutely must adhere to the policy of verifiability from reliable sources if it is to remain neutral and neither synthesis or original research. That is to say, it is not for editors to maintain the allegation or infer an allegation, but to confer that the allegation was reported elsewhere (e.g. Source X reports that Subject A is an alleged islamophobe). And what's with the warring on the {{controversy}} tag? - Tiswas^(t) 09:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A section that contains nothing but allegations of acts of Islamaphobia cannot be named "Acts of Islamaphobia", I think we can agree on that. So what's the alternative if "Alleged acts of Islamaphobia" is out of the question? We may be forced to choose between the lesser of two evils here - and the lesser evil is always to accurately convey doubt where doubt exists, not to side 100% with those making allegations by presenting their worldview as fact (that the acts of Islamaphobia described in the section did indeed occur). - Merzbow 17:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we come to a consensus as to eliminating the whole "defined by some" line from the header? "Islamophobia" is in the OED. In fact, it's in every dictionary that's been published in the last decade. It's used in the received manner in every major news outlet in the Western World. Case closed.

Could we also get Malik and Salman Rushdie's criticism of the term out of the header? They have their space in the criticism section. MarkB2 14:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

s/defined by some/defined by an overwhelming majority/ - Without trawling through the history, have any other definitions been attributed to reliable sources? (I know that there have been more than a few flakey definitions.) If not, I see no issue - A definition can hardly be held to be POV if it is the only V that can be supported. If there is a significant (and verifiable) minority (no pun intended), an entry in the main article space might be worth considering. - Tiswas^(t) 14:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've waited long enough. I'm removing the weasel words "defined by some" and simply replacing them with the OED definition. I'm also getting Malik and Rushdie's criticisms out of the header. MarkB2 02:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - I agree with this action. Such weasel words do not belong in an encylopedia article. Padishah5000 05:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose see section above. Islamophobia is controversial, and the criticism belongs in this article. Alleged needs to be in the introduction, and so does the fact that islamophobia is controversial. --Sefringle 03:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ, Sefringle. I leave the comments out there for thirteen days and no one besides Tiswas says anything, then I do the edit and you revert it within three hours. You had THIRTEEN DAYS to say something!

Calling it "controversial" is fine, but I don't see why a few writers who think the term is misused deserve to have 45% of the header (by word count) criticizing it. A couple of sentences should do. Something like "Many British writers have criticized the use of the term. Among them, Salman Rushdie and Kenan Malik have asserted that the term "confuses criticism of Islam as a religion and stigmatization of those who believe in it." MarkB2 06:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose As mention before on this discussion page, the notable criticism of the concept makes it a plain fact that it is indeed controversial. According to policy, the notable criticism that has been raised against the concept should of course also be mentioned in the lead section. -- Karl Meier 18:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree There doesn't seems to be much controversy surrounding the definition, only criticism of how the term can be used to stifle freedom of speech. I also agree that the weight given to the criticism in the header is excessive and in fact repeats what is given in the article. A summary of the extent and nature of the criticism should be enough.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Umer Al-Amerikee (talk • contribs)

Karl, I'm not sure you understood what I was proposing. I wasn't suggesting removing the criticism from the "lead section," just trimming it. MarkB2 13:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reading this article and reviewing Wikipedia’s policies on NPOV, NOR, RS, RELY, I think the much of the article is problematic. In fact, a lot of the article seems to be a thinly disguised debate between individuals who believe that Islamophobia is a problem and those who do not. As such, I would say that most of the article violates the NOR policy since it brings together published material, including primary sources, in order to bolster one point of view or another instead of relying on “published materials with a reliable publication process(es).”

“The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position”

“Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.”

Umer Al-Amerikee 01:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please give examples. - Merzbow 05:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this is a good example of weasel wording, even more so as it's in the first sentence. the Runnymede trust doesn't dispute that it's a characterisation of anti-Muslim or anti-Islam sentiment, so inserting such clauses to obscure the notion of agreement over its definition is unencyclopedic. ITAQALLAH 21:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]