Talk:Islamophobia/Archive 9

message: Due to the description given in the article, why is it called "Islamophobia"? It is not a true phobia in the sense that a phobia would be the fear of something, which in this case could be a genuine phobia given the recent circumstance regarding terrorism. It leaves no "label", so to speak, for people that are in genuine fear of muslim people. Ray harris1989 22:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the reading I've done and the pursuit of information relative to this word I'd say that it originally did refer to a -phobia but over time it evolved into meaning something else. The reality is that this word is still very much evolving and this article is essentially a "snap-shot" of what the word roughly means now. (→Netscott) 22:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Phobia?

message: For NPOV reasons this article needs to actually not use the term when discussing its use by others... this is another part of the reason that I've initiated the "Examples of use in public discourse" section. The section title "Efforts against Islamophobia" falls afoul of this principal concerning neutrality. Netscott 20:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is ridiculous. The article should of course use the term itself, just as the articles on anti-Semitism and racism use the terms they describe. Wikipedia:Verifiability does not mean, that every article needs to put all it's content in a section called "Examples of use in public discourse". It is enough to cite sources so the statements become verifiable. Raphael1 20:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Raphael1, you're failing to understand the difference between an established term like anti-Semitism and a neologism like islamophobia, this is one of the reasons necessitating not actually using the term islamophobia in the article about it. Netscott 21:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *What about the neologisms Genocide, Cyberspace, Westernization or War on Terrorism? All of those articles are using the term and none has a section called "Examples of use in public discourse". Raphael1 23:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None of those articles identifies the terms of being neologisms I believe. They are all significantly better defined and understood than islamophobia. Bibigon 00:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonetheless all of those terms are neologisms. Do you think, that our readers will understand the term better, if it has a section called "Examples of use in public discourse"? Raphael1 10:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following Wikipedia guidelines in effect support not actually using the "islamophobia" term when editing on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Let us please take these guidelines to heart and follow them accordingly. Netscott 08:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your sincerity to only follow the guidelines would be much more plausible, if you'd have filed an AfD on War on Terrorism as well. Raphael1 09:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Usage of the actual Islamophobia term in this article

message: I've just come across this article for the first time, and was very surprised by the opening line. Having flicked briefly through the long discussion on this page it seems that there are two things that are dealt with in this article:
a) irrational hatred of Muslims and Islam
b) the etymology and use of the term 'Islamophobia'
Both (a) and (b) should be covered by wikipedia. It seems obvious to me that (a) should be dealt with under the article Islamophobia, and (b) should be dealth with in either a section of this article, or an article of its own, entitled something like 'The term Islamophobia'. I will therefore rewrite the opening sentence to make it clear that the subject of this article is (a). Nomist 16:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening definition 

message: There are equivalent cats for :Category:anti-Semitism and :Category:anti-Catholicism.  Islamophobia is a similar concept.  I'm today making a few other similar categories for future use -- I have done this before with great success.  I don't want to get in an ideological war.  Islamophobia is an appropriate subject for a category whether you agree with the concept or not.  The newly created category is here :Category:Islamophobia.  --Ben Houston 03:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Islamophobia Cat

message: Please note that User:Netscott has put the :Category:Islamophobia up for deletion for the same reasons he originally put up this article for deletion (which resulting in a 30 to 5 vote for keep.)  The CfD page can be found here Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_20#Category:Islamophobia if anyone is interested in voicing an opinion.  --Ben Houston 17:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category for Deletion: Islamophobia

message: Why do we mention the reports from HRW and CAIR that allege that there has been an "increase in hate crimes against Muslims and Islamic organizations", in the intro section? None of our sources that we refer to even mention the term "islamophobia". -- Karl Meier 22:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They mention hate crimes against Muslims, which is islamophobic per definition. Raphael1 22:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a very big claim Raphael. Who says that all "hate crimes" against Muslims are per definition "islamophobic"? -- Karl Meier 22:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Raphael is right. Islamophobia is a prejudice or hatred against Muslims. Anti-Muslim hate crimes result from prejudice or hatred against Muslims. Faz90 22:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you reject the possiblity that anyone that commit a "hate crime" against a Muslim could have other motives than what you call "islamophobia"? -- Karl Meier 22:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I in good faith reverted Karl's removal of this info but I too see why there should be reservations about having the info in the article as it stands. Wouldn't it be more pertinent to include examples of these organizations' actual utilization of the term "islamophobia" in the intro in terms of prejudice and hatred against followers of Islam? Netscott 22:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: intro section

message: I have protected this article to prevent edit warring. Feel free to post on WP:RFPP to request unprotection; admins may unprotect this without further reference to me. Stifle (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks pretty much like a two-hander between Karl Meier and Irishpunktom to me.  Can't we just warn them to stop playing silly buggers? --Tony Sidaway 16:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Netscott and raphael1 are involved too. There is going to be Mediation. --Irishpunktom\talk 17:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mediation seems appropriate at this time. Netscott 17:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree despite my wrong version concerns. :-) Netscott 17:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: I have filed a request for mediation on this article. Interested editors please be aware and for those who may be interested in joining in the mediation please add yourselves. Thanks. Netscott 17:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Mediation

message: I suffest the name Anti-Muslim sentiment, for several reasons:
*More neutral
*more encompassing in terms of the range of attitudes
*the therm is common: "anti-Muslim" vs "anti-Islamic" is 5:1 in google
*more correct: the target are people (Muslims), not religion. The distinction of "muslim" vs. "islam" is notable eg. in questions how to say correctly: "islamic scholar" or "Muslim scholar" and in many other cases.
`'mikka (t) 23:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a naming convention, Islamophobia is a far more widespread and acepted term than "Anti-Muslim sentiment"--Irishpunktom\talk 00:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is widespread, but what's its usage? We have Persecution of Muslims and Historical persecution by Muslims articles. Is it Islamophobia? BTW "anti-Muslim" word is just as widespread as Islamophobia, and if you remove wikipedia and mirrors, it is even more widespread. Not to say that you did not answer my arguments. And forgetting  than majority rule is not the only naming convention. `'mikka (t) 00:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This suggestion has appeared a couple of days ago in its complementary form, in that jacoplane stated a potential use of an article about Muslim civil rights around the world. For example, given something like the UN's ideal set of human rights, anti-muslim sentiment might then be the degree to which by active measures they're denied those rights due to their religion. Nysin 03:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I vote to keep the name Islamophobia as it is about the arguments over the meaning of the word as well as the actuality of the concept in the real world. If Anti-Muslim sentiment is wanted by wikipedians then it should be created, it can allways be deleated if it not up to standard or not really wanted after all.Hypnosadist 22:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming proposal 

message: Raphael, please stop citing references in which no claim of "Islamophobia" is actually made. Nysin 05:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed that reference, though I don't perceive WP:OR as an order to stop thinking. Even the US Marine Corps agrees with the Council on American-Islamic Relations, who consider that video clearly inappropriate. Nysin, what do you think motivated this marine to write and sing that song? Raphael1 11:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not an order to stop thinking, and I've never stated such. I'm not going to speculate at the moment as to what motivated this marine to write and sing that song, but unless a reliable source states it to be Islamophobia, it's not WP's business to do so in their stead. Nysin 22:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  YA NOR violation 

message: Is the Gitmo reference with the questionable citation looking to change anytime soon? Nysin 04:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gitmo ref 

message: Would anyone please care to explain, why the statement of Queen Noor is supposed to be in the section, which lists (alleged) examples of Islamophobia? IMHO Queen Noor clearly is not islamophobic at all, instead she makes an effort against Islamophobia. Raphael1 00:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm editing to clarify this as we speak. It appears that there are some general references that are in the "efforts against" section that don't mention any specific plan of attack in terms of countering "islamophobia". Netscott 00:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Karl Meier and I are doing the work that's been needing to be done in terms of properly attributing the utilization of the term to those parties doing so. Maybe you could help? Netscott 00:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Raphael1, I've divided up the references section into three sections to better distinguish the information about the various types of references in response to your inquiry here. What do you think? Netscott 13:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disapprove that separation into "views" and "acts", because it's almost impossible to do. How can you say, that an islamophobic journalist writing a book is merely having a "view" and what about the BNP using widespread Islamophobia in their election campaign? Nobody who merely has an islamophobic view will ever be listed here, because we'd never find out unless he "acts" based on his views. Raphael1 21:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queen Noor 

message: I changed the opening line; to show that there are differences of opinion regarding the definitions we highlight two examples. I have removed three Block quotes, there are many names mention with thei opinions, there is no obvious reason why these three people deserved such lengthy quotes. I have moved a report detailing the alleged existence of the concept away the efforts against, because its not, its a report into it. Efforts against it may come from it, but it, by itself, is not. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, Irishpunktom since you were the editor who created the "efforts against Islamophobia" section please explain your definition of what is supposed to be there. Based upon the content that is there the definition you're going by is less than clear. There are a number of quotes of people towards such ends (like Queen Noor below) but don't specifically mention a particular "effort" against "islamophobia" (say like the OIC's effort). Netscott 15:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't understand what it is you are asking for? Queen Noor isn't in there any more, and the OIC has set up an observatory on Islamophobia so as to "tackle the issue of Islamophobia everywhere." The setting up of an Observatory is an effort.--Irishpunktom\talk 16:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm saying that the OIC as well as the kingdom of Jordan's call, and the British government setting up of initiatives but your quote of former prime minister Jan Peter Balkenende isn't an effort nor is Ken Livingstone's quote and not the cite of The Downfall of the Netherlands either. What is the definition you're going by to include such one time quotes, etc? Netscott 16:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Downfall of the Netherlands is notable due to how rare it was to have a book banned in Holland, also that much of what he wrote in the book has come to pass and more with the killing of Theo van Gogh (film director).Hypnosadist 21:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changed a lil

message: I haven't checked who denuded the Benn paragraph, but it's not even really critical anymore. The point of it is not tolerance per se, a message quite commonplace in the rest of this Islamophobia article, but instead "But these virtues are a far cry from the sentimental pretence that all claims to religious truth are somehow ‘equal’, or that critical scrutiny of Islam (or any belief system) is ignorant, prejudiced, or ‘phobic’. By all means let us be well-informed about Islam, but let us not assume that once we are, we shall altogether like what we find.". Ignoring the last sentence denies the purpose of its inclusion to begin with. Nysin 16:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piers Benn 

message: I'm not happy having to do this... as I think doing so is a bit distracting but the need for a neutral point of view regarding the term is very evident when there's such a prominent "critcism" section of the concept and the term. Additionally much like User:Karl Meier I've begun including citation details regarding individual references and I encourage fellow editors to continue in this regard particularly for neutrality reasons. Netscott 16:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: In accord with this discussion I have in good faith removed quote marks from section titles until such time as the question of utilization of the actual term in the article is established through Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. (→Netscott) 16:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The quoting is just one sign of obvious bias in the article. Another sign is the first sentence: "Islamophobia is a neologism with no agreed definition."  As if any other term - even a relative old one like "anti-Semitism" - has an agreed definition found in every dictionary. Raphael1 21:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Raphael1 ever one to be quick to assume good faith. Let's see who put the "no agreed definition" part in.... Hmm, Irishpunktom, a muslim. Raphael1.... please assume good faith. Thanks. (→ Netscott ←) 21:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Irishpunktom probably wouldn't have put that sentence in, if you wouldn't have replaced our consented definition with that IMHO poor Oxford definition. Raphael1 01:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, Raphael1 I'm going to be breaking WP:NPA and WP:CIV in saying this but, you're an idiot who wastes people's time with your lack of mastery of the application of logic and your continued false accusations and tendentious disruptive editing and proxy behavior. Don't forget you've previously falsely called me a liar and never apologized. One can assume good faith for so long but with your repeated demonstrations there is no other word to best describe you but idiot and I mean that in the fullest sense... do read the idiot article. Karl Meier is the one who made that change. User:Azate didn't say it directly but his words essentially mean that you are also incompetent outside of your specialty which apparently is computer related (and even there I'd have my doubts). (→Netscott) 02:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You did that change as well. Raphael1 19:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing like implicitly verifying my previous statements Raphael1, well done. Please note in that diff that it involved the "Use in public discourse" section that was the primary subject of our pre-page protection content dispute. (→Netscott) 19:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Netscott, you've been warned about making personal attacks, and you yourself have given warnings againt it. I'm surprised at you. Also, the use of scare quotes is excessive, they should be removed. --Irishpunktom\talk 13:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Irishpunktom, since you've not refuted anything I've said in my above commentary are you expressing an implicit agreement with it? Your own commentary in Raphael1's RfAr seems slightly indicative when you yourself said, "Raphael asked me to come here, and so I have." as though you weren't really inclined to otherwise.  As far as quoting the word "islamophobia", there are ways of writing this article that are in accord with a neutral point of view that would negate the need for the quotes but despite my efforts to move in that direction my edits keep getting reverted. Let's be honest it is not at all neutral for the article about the concept and term to be using it when there is such a significant section regarding criticism of both, is it? (→Netscott) 14:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Netscott, this is somewhat irrelevent to the matter at hand, but I added that because it was true. Its not that I was really inclined to otherwise, its that I was unaware till I was informed, and thats why my additions were late in the process. Calling people idiots is not nice man, its incivil and should be avoided. Also, scare quotes should be avoided, there are plenty of disputed terms in Wikipedia, New anti-Semitism, Islamofascism, Loony left, none of which use scare quotes the way this does. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is relevant when User:Raphael1 demonstrates that he's not assuming good faith in my editing here and repeatedly makes false accusations in that regard. Irishpunktom the lead sentence in the Application section of Islamofascism reads thusly, 'Some writers have used "Islamofascism" to refer strictly to Islamic movements'. Why are you utilizing that term for comparison then? (→Netscott) 15:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even Loony left reads thusly, 'The columnist for The Guardian and The Independent, Peter Jenkins, recorded policies which were dubbed "loony left" by the media ... ' and comparison to new anti-Semitism is a false analogy as anti-Semitism is a well established term fully in the English lexicon with "new" attached to the front of it to distinguish it from the "old" anti-semitism. (→Netscott) 15:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  New anti-semitism is not a well established term, it is seen by many as a way of attacking people who are critical of Israel. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right it's not a "term", it is a phrase whose comparison in this regard to the term islamophobia is a false analogy. Please respond to my other points. (→Netscott) 15:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exactly what makes you think its not a term? And, exactly, why is it a false analogy? --Irishpunktom\talk 09:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quoting "Islamophobia"

message: I still don't see why Roger Hardys definition should be notable enough to be mentioned. Has anyone used it, refered to it, or repeated it anywhere? What makes it important? -- Karl Meier 23:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a definition by the BBCs Islamic Affairs analyst.  The BBC's Islamic Affairs analyst is notable enough to warrant inclusion. --Irishpunktom\talk 09:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps you are right that he is notable, but doesn't in itself make his definition notable and worth mentioning in this article. My question was: Why is his definition notable? What makes it important enough to be mentioned? Has anyone used it, refered to it or repeated it anywhere? -- Karl Meier 17:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the BBC is such a significant world class level media outlet; on the surface of this question, I'm inclined to agree with Irishpunktom. (→Netscott) 17:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is supposed to be concise, and we are only to include the most important definitions in it. The question is not if Roger Hardy or the BBC is notable or at a world class level. What matters is quite simply if the definitino is important enough to be mentined. My question is: Why is the definition that is mentioned as a short sideremark in an article about another subject important enough to be mentioned? -- Karl Meier 17:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the fact that the definition of this term is in a rather nebulous state it makes sense to be citing how folks are defining it, particularly folks who are in key positions to influence how the term is coming to be understood. Roger Hardy is in such a position. (→Netscott) 18:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is of course true that Roger Hardy is indeed in a position where he can influence how the term is used, but that doesn't mean that he has actually done it. I am of course not against the idea that we should mention how different people and organizations has defined the term, but I believe it is a reasonable requirement for inclusion that we are somehow able to demonstrate that their definition is notable, has made an impact and has been mentioned somewhere. In cases such as this with Roger Hardy I believe it is even more important because of the fact that ,his "definition" of the term is only a short side remark in an article regarding another topic. The "Characterizations" section is already quite heavily populated, and if we are going to mention every short remark regarding what the definition of Islamophbia might be, from everyone that might be notable, then it's going to be a very long section for our readers to go through. -- Karl Meier 20:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Roger Hardy

message: This article is not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia and it is biased and offensive to non-muslims and has been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
—Preceding unsigned comment added by BookwormUK (talk • contribs) 
:That AfD you linked on the article has been closed and the result was to keep the article. It is not appropriate to add it back. jaco♫plane 00:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to nominate it for deletion, you will probably want to create a third nomination page. "Biased and offensive" are not criteria for deletion. BhaiSaab talk 03:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamophobia 

message: Certain individuals are trying to use the fact that Islamophobia is a somewhat new term (if 15 years is "new") to try and remove lots of important information about anti-Muslim sentiment, as part of a pretty obvious agenda.
I'm going to create a new article "anti-Muslim sentiment" (we even have anti-American sentiment so it should easily pass notability) and copy all the generic stuff about anti-Muslim sentiment over to there, where it won't need to be scientifically proved to be relevant by using whatever ludicrous criteria that will satisfy Netscott.
This article can be left as an article about the term Islamophobia, so the hair splitters can knock themselves out. Deuterium 06:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a great idea! I look forward to editing on this soon to be created article. (→Netscott) 06:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Article created: Anti-Muslim sentiment, I've organized it by country since that seems the most logical way to do it. Deuterium 07:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stuff this 

message: I looked Islamophobia up on Google Books and Amazon, which are better indicators of the use of a term by reliable sources than a straightforward Google search. The former lists 1,420 pages using the word Islamophobia, including in book titles, and Amazon mentions 329. This is significant because these are mostly books published by mainstream publishers, academics, and government departments. There's material from the European Union, the United Nations, and the United States government, and from respected scholars in the field such as Bernard Lewis, all using that word to describe a phenomenon they regard as real. Therefore, this is not an article about the use of the word, but about the concept or alleged phenomenon. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Google Books/Amazon search

message: When the page is unprotected, I'd like to put the following up as a working draft. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing this is a rather old version of this article as it's referring to original research that's since been removed (ie: "The term dates back to the 1980s or 90s"). As well this edit would just re-introduce the characterizations found in this section back into the lead and make the article lop-sided. I would suggest that you read this section of talk about the introduction (in particular the characterization of your editing on new anti-Semitism) before you go any further. (→Netscott) 07:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it isn't an old version. I just wrote it, although I did incorporate some material from the last intro I wrote for this page. The 80s/90s edit is not OR; it is sourced to Kofi Annan. The page would not become lop-sided because of a better intro; as it stands, the intro is inappropriate because it's trying to poison the well, and the article is just a list of quotes. After the intro is done, the rest of the page will have to be written properly too. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when do we rely upon non-authoritative sources who describe the origins of a term as, "The word seems to have emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s."? And give them particular preference in the lead? I can tell you now SlimVirgin, if you are serious about attempting to make such edits you'd be better prepared for the long haul because I will remove such nonsense and it's equivalents tenaciously for the foreseeable future. (→Netscott) 07:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you'll be fighting a losing battle. Your editing here and elsewhere shows you have completely misunderstood the content policies. We report what reliable sources say. Kofi Annan, like it or not, is a reliable source. If you can find a more detailed source on the origins of the term, by all means produce it, and so long as it is at least as reliable as the United Nations, we can certainly replace it. But we're not going to remove information just because you don't like it. Please review WP:V very carefully, and stop misusing the NOR policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not forget SlimVirgin that Wikipedia is not a battleground we report what reliable sources say yes... but we don't preference reliable sources when they have no authoritity on a given subject. A given individual may be a reliable source but only in as much as they are an authority on a given topic of discussion. If we followed your thinking we could equally utilize Daniel Pipes's ideas about Islamophobia for the lead wherein he describes it's origin as dating back to 1996. (Given the controversial nature of his views I'd be very hesitant about relying upon Daniel Pipes for "authoritative" content for this article.) (→Netscott) 08:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The United Nations is a source that is regarded as reliable on virtually all issues such as this, whether or not we like what they say or agree with it. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's see with respect to neutral point of view what are Wikipedia editors to do when two "reliable sources" are in conflict about a given neologism's origin date, etc? (→Netscott) 08:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion for the lead section

message: Netscott, you wrote above that Islamophobia is a "language tool." I've asked you three times to explain, but you may not have seen the question. Can you please say what a "language tool" is? SlimVirgin (talk) 08:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is a language tool?

message: Current lead section	SV's proposed lead section
Islamophobia is a neologism that in one definition found in Princeton University's Word Net refers to, "prejudice against Islam and Muslims"Word Net search for Islamophobia - Princeton University . The term, which is known to date back to 1991,  became prominent in the wake of the  September 11, 2001 attacks.Islamaphobia: Can we stop the backlash? BBC - Friday, 21 September, 2001UK 'Islamophobia' rises after 11 September BBC - Thursday, 29 August, 2002Islamophobia 'explosion' in UK BBC - Friday, 24 May, 2002Pledge to wipe out Islamophobia BBC - Saturday, 29 September, 2001
The concept of Islamophobia has attracted some controversy, and a number of writers, journalists, and intellectuals including Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses, have criticized it for allegedly confusing the criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believersMANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism, BBC News, March 1, 2006. Others such as Jonathan SteeleThe Media, Islamophobia and the war on terror., Tariq Ali This is the real outrage Tariq Ali - 13 February 2006 and Tariq Ramadan Tariq Ramadan by Ehsan Masood - Prospect Magazine - July 2006.  do not reject the concept, but differ to how it is manifested, and how "Islamophobia" can be stopped.	
Islamophobia is the concept of a prejudice against or demonization of Muslims, and a dread or hatred of Islam. Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All, Runnymede Trust, 1997, p. 1, cited in Quraishi, Muzammil. Muslims and Crime: A Comparative Study, Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 2005, p. 60. . Early in 1997, the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia, at that time part of the Runnymede Trust, issued a consultative document on Islamophobia under the chairmanship of Professor Gordon Conway, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sussex. The final report, Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All, was launched in November 1997 by the Home Secretary, Jack Straw. The term dates back to the late 1980s Runnymede 1997, p. 1, cited in Quraishi 2005, p. 60. or early 90s, Annan, Kofi. "Secretary-General, addressing headquarters seminar on confronting Islamophobia", United Nations press release, December 7, 2004. although its use has increased significantly since the September 11, 2001 attacks. Casciani, Dominic. "Islamophobia pervades UK - report", BBC News, June 2, 2004.Rima Berns McGowan writes in Muslims in the Diaspora (University of Toronto Press, 1991, p. 268) that the term "Islamophobia" was first used in an unnamed American periodical in 1991. Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations, told 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. Muzammil Quraishi, senior lecturer in Criminology at the University of Salford, writes that "whether we refer to behaviour as 'anti-Muslimism' or 'Islamophobia' seems a moot point. If we are agreed that either term refers to behaviour encapsulating hatred, and/or dislike to the extent of social and economic exclusion of Muslims, we must move to discover the extent of such behaviour and to evaluate how this influences crime and victimization ..." (Quraishi, Muzammil. Muslims and Crime: A Comparative Study, Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 2005, p. 60).
Anja Rudiger, Executive Coordinator of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, argues that it is no longer acceptable to use skin color as an attribute to distinguish people, and that religion and culture have gained currency as "markers of seemingly 'natural' kinds of differences." She writes that Islam has become "the new 'other' ..." Rudiger, Anja. "Discrimination and Legislation," session 5, Conference on "Muslims in Europe post 9/11," St. Antony's-Princeton Conference, St Antony's College, Oxford, April 26, 2004.Also see the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia report, "Summary report on Islamophobia in the EU after 11 September 2001" by Chris Allen and Jorgen S. Nielsen of the University of Birmingham, May 2002, the largest monitoring project on Islamophobia to have been commissioned to date.
The British Runnymede Trust decribed 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. Runnymede 1997, p. 5, cited in Quraishi 2005, p. 60. American writer Stephen Schwartz, director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism, has cautioned against what he sees as a tendency to accuse all opponents of Islamic radicalism of Islamophobia, but writes that it is nevertheless a real phenomenon. He defines it as the condemnation of the entirety of Islam and its history as extremist, denying the existence of a moderate Muslim majority, regarding Islam as a problem for the world, treating conflicts involving Muslims as necessarily their own fault, insisting that Muslims make changes to their religion, and inciting war against Islam as a whole. Schwartz, Stephen. "The 'Islamophobes' That Aren't", FrontPage Magazine, April 28, 2005.
British writer and academic Kenan Malik has criticized the concept, calling Islamophobia a "myth." Malik argues that the concept confuses discrimination against Muslims with criticism of Islam, and that the term is used to silence critics of the religion, including Muslims who want to reform it. Malik, Kenan. "Islamophobia Myth", Prospect, February 2005. 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." Rushdie, Salman et al. "Writers' statement on cartoons", BBC News, March 1, 2006.
===Notes===
====Working version or not?====
I've just reverted this edit due to the fact that my own editing on this section has been reverted and I've been told post your own if you have a suggestion. Since when does Wikipedia allow for working versions on talk pages (particularly ones that can't be edited by other editors)? (→Netscott) 11:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead section comparison

message: |}
====Working version or not?====
I've just reverted this edit due to the fact that my own editing on this section has been reverted and I've been told post your own if you have a suggestion. Since when does Wikipedia allow for working versions on talk pages (particularly ones that can't be edited by other editors)? (→Netscott) 11:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: I've just reverted this edit due to the fact that my own editing on this section has been reverted and I've been told post your own if you have a suggestion. Since when does Wikipedia allow for working versions on talk pages (particularly ones that can't be edited by other editors)? (→Netscott) 11:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Working version or not?

message: Are the refs looking odd for anyone else? Mine start at 101 and have doubled up at the end, but it could be my browser. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They look fine to me. They end with 100... IronDuke 22:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mine end with 185. Weird. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: And by that I mean they go from 1 to 185 in the Notes section, with a lot of doubling; but in the text, the first ref is 101. I've never seen this happen before. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my browser(s) looks good... maybe a rendering glitch? I checked with Safari and Firefox on Mac OS X, as well as MSIE 6.x on Windows. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's happening on a number of articles for me, but apparently not to anyone else. :-( SlimVirgin (talk) 04:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good here. Nysin 05:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Refs

message: I've made a start on tidying this. If I remove something as unsourced, it doesn't mean it's gone forever; I'll look for a source and if I find one, and if the point is worth including (e.g. isn't repetitive and is on-topic), I'll put it back. So if you see something you don't like, please leave a note here about it rather than reverting. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tidying

message: Some of the items in that section, are related to generiacally to Islam and not specifically to "Islamophobia". That list needs to be paired down to include only these that use the specific term. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 100% agree with you Jossi... that should be the case for the entire article. (→Netscott) 22:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and be bold, then. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm going to sit back for a day or two and let other editors have a crack at this article. If these changes aren't made though I'll be sure to get to it. (→Netscott) 23:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An issue that I never really brought up before, and didn't see anyone else bring up: if article A satisfies WP:NOR (by whatever criteria end up being used) and article B refers to the same factual events but does not, itself, satisfy WP:NOR, should article B be allowed to be used? The other issue, which comes up again in the airline section just added, is that some of sources don't have the putative news source stating something, but quoting some individual whose status as an WP:RS seems dubious. Nysin 04:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'd need to see examples of both issues before commenting. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Efforts against Islamophobia section 

message: . Why? Nysin 04:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's being moved, not removed. In progress. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of entire criticism section 

message: 'Following Muhammad: Rethinking Islam in the Contemporary World' (UNC Press, 2003) by Carl Ernst, and 'The New Crusades: Constructing the Muslim Enemy', ed. Emran Qureshi and Michael A. Sells (Columbia University Press, 2003). --Reza1 08:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Reza. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some academic sources on [[Islamophobia]] 

message: This section consists entirely of reported, individual opinions of either parties allegedly targeted or close family members (sister, brother, father...). The institutional responses (India's and that of the Tories, for example) are not without violating NOR interpretable as indicating Islamophobia. In at least one case, the parties themselves involved don't even attributed it to Islamophobia (or anything directly pertaining to Islam or being Muslim): "I suppose he's right. We were victimised simply because we were Asians." .  (Whilst there's indeed a quotation "Just because we're Muslim, does not mean we are suicide bombers.", it's not clear from that they're reading cause into it. They might be, but that's the sort of thing that quickly becomes original research.)  is about (1) racism (what's the Muslim race?) and (2) the Arab language. Again, no mention of religion. Both  and  couch comments in "He believes ...", thus leaving the statements as purely unsubstantiated opinions. The entire section is based on such sources, as such is too poorly supported to remain in the article in anything resembling its present form. Nysin 11:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How can you possibly say "it's not clear from that they're reading cause into it" .. why else would they say "Just because we're Muslim, does not mean we are suicide bombers"? --Irishpunktom\talk 13:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be interesting to add a section on racial profiling and to include those examples in that section, because I know that racial profiling has been discussed in terms of Islamophobia. I'll look for sources when I have time.  That was a good addition you made today, IPT. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Irishpunktom, I'm not sure, but given that they don't actually state any casuality associated with that the religion they subscribe to, Wikipedia shouldn't infer it (whether it be true or false). SlimVirgin, are your putative sources slightly more explicit than the current ones? Nysin 14:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Islamophobia#Incidents_on_aircraft|Incidents on aircraft]] 

message: This article contains persistant bias. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.58.29.91 (talk • contribs) .
:You need to provide some substantiation for that claim if you want it to be acted upon.  Please provide specific examples and suggested remedies. --StuffOfInterest 15:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When does a neologism become a mainstream concept? Mrdthree 18:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A related question: there've been a couple of sources dating the term to, say, 1991, or Annan's vaguaries. Whilst they do qualify by Wikipedia's standards, what's the earliest primary source mention available of them? That is, not a 200x document stating "it originated in this year", but a 199x or 198x document containing the term "Islamophobia" in something related to its current usage. I found a 1995 or 1996 or so CAIR press release, but that was about it as far as sources of note (that is, not with only a USENET pseudonym), and those claims of early-90's vintage would seem more convincing after seeing the documents upon which they were based. Nysin 22:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So we can conclude that this article is POV, in my humble opinion. CAIR cannot be accepted as a neutral information source due to its linkage with terrorist organisations and indictment of key persons in anti-terrorism lawsuits. 81.58.29.91 10:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 81, if you want to be taken seriously, please say who you normally edit as. The lead section is not going to include Robert Spencer; in fact, I see no need to cite him anywhere on the page, but certainly not in the lead. We're trying to increase the quality of this article, not drag it into the gutter. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It might help to futher your cause if you can provide any proof that including Robert Spencer (a New York Times top-20 book author and participant in several high-profile think tanks) will drag it into the gutter. His critics issue ad-hominem attacks, but fail to provide proof for their allegations that that his statements are fundamentally false, which essentially classifies their practices rather than those of their victim as contrary to encyclopaedic standards. I added the epithet "controversial" though in order to address your concerns. 81.58.29.91 13:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Germen, if you're going to edit this page, please use your account. Spencer is not an academic or a specialist on Islam. The website he runs is full of mindless bigotry. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, 'SlimVirgin', it might help when you can provide proof of this 'bigotry' or prove that statements he makes are inaccurate. He quotes from the Qur'an and the Hadith, as well as established Islamic literature. There is no Wikipedia policy which forbids using an anonymous IP address while editing an article, so I do not understand your request. Want to send a bomb letter to me? :p Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 15:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Germen, have a look at this: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:MqnbYP3KrGgJ:www.unc.edu/courses/2004spring/reli/026/001/spencer.htm ; Professor Khaleel Mohammed holds that "Spencer portrays himself as a scholar of Islam, and that he is not."..."I consider myself a scholar and therefore prefer to engage in discussion where facts, rather than fictions and prejudgments are presented. When therefore I am told that the pope apologised for the Crusades, or that Jihad only means war, or that I have to accept interpretations of the Quran that non-Muslims (with no good intentions or knowledge of Islam) seek to force upon me, I see a certain agendum developing: one that is based on hate, and I refuse to be part of such an intellectual crime... There are certain stereotypes that extremists try to sell to the public: that all Arab countries are racist, closed to free discussion. I can only state that from my experience, I have encountered racism, anti-semitism, as well as free discussion in Arab countries--the same as I have encountered in the U.S. Indeed the hateful material that I have seen on the internet has come largely NOT from the Arabs and Muslims (although they are not free from blame), but rather from hatemongers based right here in the United States"--Reza1 23:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: Thanks for tracking down those sources, Reza. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. --Reza1 05:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: I get Islamophobia, "a prejudice against or demonization of Muslims which manifests itself in violence, harassment, discrimination, and stereotyping." but I think that listing polls about attitudes toward muslims is hardly evidence of a desire to harrass or do violence to muslims. So I think rather than labelling a section "Country-specific polls and surveys" it should be specified this is reagrding negative attitudes. If the point about harrassment or violence needs to be made then that is separate research. Mrdthree 14:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the sort of fun one gets when one stops requiring sources to actually name "Islamophobia". Nysin 14:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflating issues

message: I think we should return to calling Islamophobia a concept. If we say "phenomenon," then others will add "alleged," which makes it sound as though we're doubting it. "Neologism" does the same, and it's not really a neologism now anyway. "Concept" is entirely neutral. It is indeed a concept, but saying so doesn't come down on the side of it existing, or not. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I searched into several academic sources. None of them said it is a "concept". I am willing to accept concept only "if" one cites a university press published book that doubts the existence of Islamophobia or simply calls it a concept in the sense we are trying to use. It strikes me that it is like AhmadiNejad's calling holocaust a myth. It is “not” based on facts. --Reza1 03:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see that calling it a "concept" casts doubt on it. Racism is a concept and clearly exists in some form, though people will argue about the details. The reason I prefer "concept" to "phenomenon" is that no one can say it's an "alleged concept," because that makes no sense (not that that will necessarily stop certain people), whereas people will be adding "alleged" to "phenomenon" for the next thousand years. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Concept" is fine with me. --Reza1 05:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's necessary to insert words like "concept" or "phenomenon" before the definition. I'd keep it simple and say "Islamophobia is a fear of Islam which takes the form of prejudice against Muslims". I'd then have a full stop before going into more detail, to avoid a tautological or over-elaborate opening sentence.qp10qp 11:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: First, please sign your comments with "~~~~". Further, any specific definition still needs to come from a reliable source, and seeking parallels from another wiki article amounts to relying on Wikipedia as a source for itself - which it shouldn't do. Nysin 02:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Concept/phenomenon

message: There's nothing wrong with including the opinions of journalists, but this one isn't countered in the article and therefore sounds as if it is supposed to be a fact. I've come across hardly anyone, middle-class or not, who admits to Islamophobia (the exceptions are the occasional git in the pub or at work). The term "middle-class" is in itself questionable, because here it equates the middle-classes with respectability (I come from a respectable working-class background). Of course, this isn't to say that just because people don't admit to Islamophobia that they might not exhibit it (I've quite often come across the formula "I'm not racist/Islamophobic but . . ."). In my opinion, the only form of prejudice to which the British middle-class will admit is against the Germans, and then only when it comes to football and bagging places next to the swimming pool on holiday.qp10qp 11:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, no, the reason why the Guardian will always speak of the Middle Class is because that is their targeted audience. It has nothing to do with respectability. "Islamophobia became the only form of prejudice to which the middle class will admit" = Too many of our readers appear islamophobic. This is then personalised as is Seabrooks style. --Irishpunktom\talk 09:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it has nothing to do with respectability, why does the quote say: "Islamophobia is the half-open door through which it makes its triumphal re-entry into respectable society"? By the way, do you agree that Islamophobia has become the only prejudice to which the middle class will admit? qp10qp 10:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Islamophobia became the only form of prejudice to which the middle class will admit

message: I was disappointed to see that the mistakes I removed yesterday (the edit took me all of the England v Andorra match and, yes, it was more exciting) have been restored. What good does it do to restore mistakes like “publisers”, “descrimination”, and “there was also plans”? They do the article a disservice.
Those of my edits affecting actual content, I noted on the edit summary (see comment about one of them above). My theory is that someone noticed my removal of the Kenan Malik quote from the opening section, thought “this editor is an idiot”, and binned my whole edit on that account. But I had noticed Malik quoted saying much the same thing further down the article and that one phrase was almost identical. qp10qp 14:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Restoration of typos, spelling mistakes etc.

message: I think he makes a good point with 'Osamaism' but is he somebody's boyfriend or what? Mrdthree 06:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean. Yes, he makes a good point; but as an obscure  research assistant, I'm surprised he has a whole section and even a photograph to himself. A couple of lines from him would do the job. qp10qp 10:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good argument and I don't think we could reduce it to a couple of lines. There's a photograph because it's freely licensed and it's good to have images of sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does suffer from elephantiasis, though. It works by accretion rather than distillation: in other words, the same points are made over and over again. And examples of polls, of people being removed from planes, or whatever, are collected rather than summed up. The reason for this is that the article seeks to prove the existence of Islamophobia. It doesn't need to—so long as the essentials of that debate are recorded.qp10qp 11:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I approximately agree with this, though with the caveat that for it not to need to prove the existence of Islamophobia, it has to actually find sources claiming Islamophobia, which some of the newer additions are weaker on. The current tactic of finding vaguely stated sentiments somewhat less than friendly to Islam and relying on preponderance doesn't work anymore under those conditions. Nysin 12:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the reason it doesn't have to prove that Islamophobia exists lies beyond the article itself, in the fact that the word has considerable currency. The quality of the article depends on different criteria.qp10qp 13:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Who is Jehanzeb Hasan?

message: * the intro is way too long.
* the article missleadingly conflates racism & islamophobia.  For example, the BBC bit talks about family names which are more corrolated with race, not religion.  And the BBC poll does not even try to compare with racism facing other groups.
* And I fail to believe any of these polls are the best people can find.  I'm suspect that real academica have looked at this using better methods (such as comparing polls before & after the London bombings, or compairiing polls as people slowely forget about the bombings, etc.).
JeffBurdges 11:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misc issues 

message: The section on the Czech Republic just added cites various claims from the linked article, few, if any, of which seem clear Islamophobia. Desiring a ban on Mosque building (in what context? with state funds? By zoning? In general, regardless of means?) is debatable, though dubious-seeming.
The others are even worse: for "a threat of war ..." to be plausible without "prejudice or demonization of Muslims" merely requires that one belive that "Western and Muslim civilisations" exist. I've seen no particular claim Western civilizations don't exist, so the question is whether Muslim civilizations do. One can, in particular, claim they do, and that in some sense there might be a "war" conducted by a civilization, without claiming that either Islam or all Muslims form a monolithic, unchanging entity unresponsive to external cultural forces (per Runnymede), as for such a war to be attributable to a civilization (again, if one supports that there is a Muslim civilization) does not agreement of every person within that civilization (if being attributable's to have any practical meaning, at least).  Of course, war often entails dehumanization of opponents and the like, in which case it seems like this conflict of civilizations theory does risk causing something more clearly identifiable as Islamophobia, but to infer such a Wikipedia article should not do, per NOR.
Then, does "Muslim civilization" exist? Many reliable sources, for example, , indicate that it does. I contest, therefore, that the 55% number indicates Czech Islamophobia.
What does "29 percent of Czechs consider Islam a sect" mean exactly? In particular, what is a sect? Is it a bad thing to be a sect? Christianity has sects, and as far as I can tell, it's not really prejorative term in that context, but people will differ on this point. Mostly, without making further (cited/supported, but not too many, or else it becomes an OR argument in itself) claims, this is far too murky and unclear a point on which to hinge a claim of "Islamphobia".
"11 percent are of the view that Buddha or Abraham respectively are the founders of Islam." This just seems, in the case of Buddha, to be ignorance (but not fear of any sort), and in the second case, one could argue, I guess, for Abraham, insofar as he's the mythical founder of the line of religions which includes Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, but a more useful distinction does attribute Islam to Muhammad; therefore, I'd call this statement essentially ignorance rather than fear or hostility, and not Islamophobia.
Virtually the entire Czech paragraph's a model of how, when leaving the standard of explicit mentions of "Islamophobia", one risks some rather dicey inferences that probably violate NOR in what is the #1 Google result for "Islamophobia". Nysin 17:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Back to your old habits, Irishpunktom? (Why did you restore this section with nary a comment?) Nysin 18:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Czech Republic 

message: When does criticism become a phobia?  Is there a technical definition out there, and should it be included in this article?
Islam appears to have lots of issues in the very heart of the religion (as I have found with my research indepth), and results in an excuse for extremist behavior among some individuals of that faith.  The majority of Muslims are most definitely fine upstanding people.  Many might not be aware of questionable activities done in the name of Islam, right from nearly the very beginning, or simply choose not to believe anything brought up relating to such (debates on what is fact and fiction is constantly ongoing).  The religion itself, after seeing quotes from it, do have serious problems, but of course, even the Old Testament (bought by Jewish, and by Christians [although Christians weakened it with a possibly more tolerant New Testament]) endorsed the occassional use of genocide.  With such extreme texts, even if people consider the Old Testament extreme, there is such low Jewish numbers of people around the world (and only one dominated country, which in itself is a democracy), that there was not a lot of possibility for taking things extreme.  Islam, in contrast, has huge numbers (of members world-wide), and dominates many countries, and does have a vocal minority of members calling for more dominations.  With some questionable ethics at the heart of what some view as the divine ideal, it could be a valid cause of concern amongst some people.  Nonprof. Frinkus 22:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as how Israel jumps down anyones throat for criticizing their policies and calls them "Anti-Semitic" the minute you disagree with the Zionist philosophy and Zionist foriegn policies, I don't see anything wrong about calling out islamophobic individuals, and theres ALOT of them out there. Haramzadi 17:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do Israel's putative actions have to do with this article? Nysin 07:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely nothing--Sefringle 01:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is any Islamic criticism painted "Islamophobic"? 

message: I'm finding alot of them which are down, how long ago has it been since the list of cites has been checked? Homestarmy 05:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at about the first quarter of them and those all seem fine... Homestarmy 05:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How old are some of these cites?

message: The person who put the tag on the article lists some reasons that I find false, so I am removing the tag. Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 17:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing {{tl|totallydisputed}} tag