Talk:Islamophobia/Archive 6

message: I voted to keep this page on its VfD, and it has since errupted into an edit war. I think I echo others when I say that articles such as this are doomed to POV, not becuase they are inherently so, but because of the number of people with axes to grind, subconscious or otherwise, who are determined to bend the article over and fuck any usefulness in an attempt to perusade us that Islam is right/wrong, leaving nothing encyclopedic or useful. Hence, I propose that we ask for someone who has no previous knowledge or experience of Islam to do some research from a few books and come up with a shorter, far more encyclopedic article. Failing that, the article ought to be stripped to its barest of bones, a few basic statements of fact (areas found in, organizations found in, a very brief history) and a dictionary definition that are indisputable. Any additions could then be discussed before being added. Stephen 30 June 2005 01:08 (UTC)
:I'm not sure if the above remarks are entirely helpful in settling the dispute. All constructive comments and edits you can make are gratefully received, but the more inflammatory editors (i.e. Germen and Yuber) no longer seem to be involved in this page and those who are left have been attempting to find a reasonable compromise by editing the draft and discussing references.
:I'm not sure what a person can do about any "subconscious" biases they might have, but I'd still like to give the traditional Wikipedia method a go. I have posted this article for a RfC, although we are yet to get anyone helping out here from the RfC - not sure if I did it correctly! If you would like to create a seperate draft of your reduced version of the article in a sub-namespace here, however, that would be useful.
:It is also worth pointing out that some editors dispute the "dictionary" definition of Islamophobia: nothing is quite so clear cut. I ask you familiarise yourself with the various points of dissent above. Axon 30 June 2005 09:31 (UTC)
*Responding to RfC... Axon, do you really need another editor to tell you this??  Germen's argumentation has been ridiculous: he counters your good-faith attempts to find neutral references with cites from the lunatic fringe; he responds to your good-faith attempts to argue with ad hominem attacks that basically state that those coming from the Muslim point of view inherently lack credibility; he refuses to answer honest questions by accusing you of slander; he consistently makes outrageous Nazi analogies; he's probably sockpuppeting; etc. etc. etc.  You should get a higher-up to set him straight.  Dcarrano 02:49, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
:I'm with Dcarrano on this. Germen is not acting in good faith and is apparently Islamaphobic himself. Sigh. --Habap 13:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have considered putting him up for an RfA especially considering his recent actions. I would like to give him a chance first, on this talk page, so any contributions you guys can make to the discourse above would be gratefull received. Axon 13:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

text: There is already an RfC for this page: do you mean an RfC specific to the user? Axon 08:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  People who cannot win by arguments are resolving to baser means of achieving their goal. I already have received several complaints of people that Islam-critical articles get censorec here, even when references and sources were sufficient.
--Germen 14:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solving the unsolvable 

message: This term, of course, is subjective. All religions with the possible exception of Zen buddhism praise adherence to their doctrines. The hadith contain a much-cited injunction to follow the middle path. Muslims which are adherents of more austere brands of islam, such as Salafism, define this middle path as the exact replication of Muhammads behaviour.
Exceeding Mohammads example, e.g. praying seven times per day instead of five times, is considered extremism by this group.
::Quotes and references from Salafi sources, please. Don't just summarize what you believe they believe to be "extremist."
:::Quote follows below: "Moderation in religion means following the example of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Exaggeration means trying to do more than he did, and negligence means not reaching that level. " - http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=9466&dgn=4 --Germen 09:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your assessment of Zen Buddhism as a faith system that does not "praise adherence" to its "doctrines" may be oversimplifying things a little. Soto school and Rinzai school, and their respective offshoots, had and have a historic disagreement on the nature of the practice, and the role Zen played in promoting Japanese militarism before and during World War II is only now coming to light . BrandonYusufToropov 17:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not a scholar of Zen, therefore I said possible. OK, what you said is well possible. Please note that Japanese Zen buddhism has some deviations of the original Chinese Zen. --Germen 09:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A Religious fanatism

message: :Qur'an 59:2 It is He Who got out the Unbelievers among the People of the Book from their homes at the first gathering (of the forces). Little did ye think that they would get out: and they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allah! But the (Wrath of) Allah came to them from quarters from which they little expected (it), and cast terror into their hearts, so that they destroyed their dwellings by their own hands and the hands of the Believers. Take warning, then, O ye with eyes (to see)!
--Germen 10:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, because the modern definition of the word terrorism works so well with a translation that more accurately is represented by the word fear.  And notice that it is Allah doing the casting here.Heraclius 04:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The language in this aya is quite convoluted (as is characteristic of the Qur'an, I would like to say). If you read this verse over and over, it gives the impression that Allah instills terror by means of a Believing army. Disputed, I know. In other verses Believers are seen as instruuments of Allah which cast fear in the hearts of the enemies of islam. Terrorism basically means: spreading of fear. --Germen 09:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: True, a native Dutch speaker reading an English translation of the Qur'an would see it as convoluted.  But let me ask you, how can God instill actual political violence into the hearts of unbelievers?  Are you seriously saying that with the definition of terrorism this sentence makes sense?Heraclius 15:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Heraclius, as I said, the wording is quite convolute and translations wildly vary, so I cannot be sure. But it goves me the impression that Allah instills fear in the hearts of the Unbelievers by means of the army of the Believers. Gosh, unbelievable 1.2 billion people take this crap seriously. --Germen 15:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: C Terrorism

message: :Qur'an 4:32And in no wise covet those things in which Allah Hath bestowed His gifts more freely on some of you than on others: to men is allotted what they earn, and to women what they earn: But ask Allah of His bounty. For Allah hath full knowledge of all things. 
:Qur'an 4:34Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, Great (above you all). 
:Qur'an 66:5It may be, if he divorced you (all), that Allah will give him in exchange consorts better than you,- who submit (their wills), who believe, who are devout, who turn to Allah in repentance, who worship (in humility), who fast,- previously married or virgins. 
--Germen 10:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: D Equality

message: :Qur'an 33:36 It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, 
when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path. (i.e. only theocracy is allowed)
:5:44  It was We who revealed the Torah (to Moses): therein was guidance and light. By its standard have been judged the Jews, by the prophets who bowed (as in Isl?m) to Allah's will, by the rabbis and the doctors of law: for to them was entrusted the protection of Allah's book, and they were witnesses thereto: therefore fear not men, but fear Me, and sell not My signs for a miserable price. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are unbelievers. --Germen 10:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're totally missing the point of this section.  This section is about the prejudice that Muslims are not able to live in democratic societies, not about what God said about Moses and what God said about disobeying him.Heraclius 15:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am afraid you are wrong. These ayaat forbid cooperation with the making of any law which contradicts the Qur'an or the Sunnah, e.g. laws protecting the rights of homosexuals or protect freedom of religious conviction. When you vote for a democratic party, you are influencing the lawmaking process and hence have influence on this process. This makes voting an illegal endeavour unless you vote for a Muslim fundamentalist party which wants to implement Shariah. --Germen 15:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: F Democracy

message: On 21 July, 2005, during a major policy speech at the UMNO General Assembly, Malaysian Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said that he felt it is his duty to prevent Islam and its symbols from being used to propagate violence. He set three missions for himself ? continuing to remind the world community to understand the root causes of terrorism, explaining that Islam is a religion of peace and opposed to violence, and showcasing Malaysia as a modern Islamic country and a safe place to invest and visit. Prime Minister Badawi is also the current chairman of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. (The Star) (Iranian Quran News Agency)(Islam Online) 
:Please add the above information to the article after the protection is lifted. The article has been protected for what, one month?!?! -- Vsion 00:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Islam is not a religion of peace, but a religion of submission, as manifested by the literal meaning of the Arabic word al-Islaam. Spreading inaccurate statements about islam cannot be seen as anti-islamophobia efforts, but rather as whitewashing. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 12:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see your point. Are you saying that there is an "inaccurate statement" of the Prime Minister's speech, or the Prime Minister made an "inaccurate statement" on Islam?  Can you point out what is this "inaccurate statement"? Can you point out what is the "whitewashing" (implying denial) effort you mentioned? Is it therefore your position that Islam is a religion of violence? Vsion 19:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The latter: calling islam a religion of peace is incorrect. Islam means submission. If there is submission to Islamic authority, violence it not necessary according to islam. It can be described as Pax Islamica. Mahathir made such a statement (i.e. islam is peace), the statement was incorrect however.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 07:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The given quote makes no mention about "submission". It simply says "...Islam is a religion of peace and opposed to violence ... ", which you said is incorrect; it follows then that Islam is a religion of (or espousing) violence. This is your position, right? -- Vsion 10:00, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My position is that Islam is a religion of peace when it has the upper hand and there is no resistance against islam. When islam is not in such a position, violence is one of the accepted means to achieve this objective, when other means fail. So peace is not a core tenet of islam and characterizing islam as a religion of submission to Allah is more accurate. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 11:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't contradict with Badawi's statement or Mahathir's statement in any significant way. In fact, you partially agree that "Islam is a religion of peace" in the very least. --Vsion 00:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, the page has been protected for a while but as soon as it is unprotected I will endeavour to add the above. Any input you can give the resolve the dispute on this page would be gratefully received. Axon (talk|contribs) 08:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Islamophobia effort by Malaysian Prime Minister 

message: In as much as "Islamaphobia" refers to injust discrimination and xenophobia against Muslims, there is no need to ask whether Islam is primitive or advanced, static or dynamic, barbaric or civilized. Muslims must be seen as individuals. One can object to Islam in its entirety without being xenophobic or discriminatory towards Muslims. Many people who read the Qur'an and hadith feel that Islam is a religion that is rigid, violent, primitive, sexist, etc. People have the right to their own opinion, and this article should not turn into a theological debate about what exactly shariah or the Qur'an says. Like I said, it is possible to object to a religion without being xenophobic towards its adherents. For example, I am generally opposed to Islam, but that does not mean that I am generally  opposed to Muslims. We are all entitled to our own opinion about various ideologies and religions. But it is not ethical or even rational to hold discriminatory or xenophobic views towards the adherents of a major world religion. That should be the extent to which this article criticizes other people's beliefs as being "Islamaphobic." This is not the place for arguing about Qur'an verses, this is about the right of Muslims to equality, justice and freedom, regardless of whether or not they believe in secular ideals of equality, justice and freedom. --Zeno of Elea 14:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The difference between religious discrimination and freedom of thought 

message: On 26 July 2005, a trans-Atlantic flight from Los Angeles to London was diverted to Boston when passengers were nervous about three Pakistani passengers acting suspiciously. The trio were detained and then released after questioning. They were later allowed to take another flight to London. (Guardian)
This is an example of Islamophobia, which is real and around us; it affects the lives of ordinary innocent people. Please add the above text, after protection is lifted. --Vsion 03:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to disagree that this represents Islamophobia. The article doesn't detail the suspicious activities or the reactions on the flight (it only states that with one of them in First Class, they were moving between there and the normal seats), it is hard to tell whether the diversion of the flight was unjustified. After landing, it was found that nothing was amiss, but without having been on the flight, we cannot know whether the same would have happened if the three men were middle-aged WASPs. As such, without further detail, labelling this event Islamophobic is under-informed POV. --Habap 14:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are more details, why didn't the authorities, the airline or other passengers tell us more? As it stands now, the only thing was that a first class passenger moved to other section (maybe a few times), I didn't know there's a flight rule against that. --Vsion 19:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, the cabin crew will politely tell you that it is not permitted. Disobeying the directions of the cabin crew is a federal offense. As it stands now we know that they were acting suspiciously. Until further evidence emerges that it was not suspicious, it's not fair to say that the reaction was Islamophobic. I'd quote some things, but not sure any say anything specifically about what was reported Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR), Title 14: Aeronautics and Space, which may only be a slice of what actually happened. Until we know more, speculation on the motivations of the cabin crew are mere speculations. Also, note that while the passengers were reported as Pakistanis, no indication of their religious choices were provided. It may be Pakistani-phobia. --Habap 19:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks. Then just leave the text in this talk page, as it already is. --Vsion 20:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples  

message: I have just checked again, to see if some agreement has been reached here, but although the discussion seems to have gone quiet for a bit, I still don't feel that I see evidence that people have come to some sort of agreement on the content of this page. Lacking that, I'm concerned that unprotecting the page will result in an immediate resumption of the edit war. Or would people rather have it unprotected, and see how it goes? Comments? Noel (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Runnymede Trust definition of Islamophobia must be renounced. It is not even clear why it is worthy of mention. --Zeno of Elea 07:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

text: As you can see above, Noel, user:Axon consistently obstructs any sensible effort to come to a more objective and neutral version of this article by continuously referring to the arbitrary Runnymede Trust definition of islamophobia as the sole authorative definition and trying to get people banned who disagree with his narrow POV. Note that a group has been created which addresses this persistent Wikipedia problem. I suggest a binding effort of dispute resolution about this page is undertaken. 
--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 12:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

text: "Having exhausted all attempts to resolve the dispute I have taken this issue to RfC and RfA and am awaiting a response." User:Axon, I dispute your claim that you have exhausted all attempts to resolve "the dispute." The dispute is that you want to keep the Runnymede Trust definition of "Islamophobia," other do not. I have commented on the definition and tried to propose a better definition, yet you have no responded to my comments against your opinion. As far as I am concerned, you have made absolutely no attempt to resolve the dispute. Furthermore, your RfC/RfA is an unrelated dispute between you and User:Germen that has nothing to do with this article. --Zeno of Elea 11:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the RfC and RfA for evidence of  my repeated and continuing attempts at dispute resolution. If you feel you have any evidence that contradicts them, please cite them, otherwise I have no idea what you are talking about in the above. The RfC and RfA are directly related to behaviour regarding this article and I also supply sufficient evidence of this. if you feel you are being left out of the dispute I suggest you contribute constructively to the ongoing discussion here and elsewhere, and by reviewing the discussion above to avoid repeating discussion. Axon (talk|contribs) 09:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protection 2

message: : This article has been protected for far too long.  m:Protected pages considered harmful.  I'm unprotecting. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotecting

message: Also, what other articles on Wikipedia have the word neologism in their opening sentence?Heraclius 19:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: neologism cites examples going back to 1727, but the article is confusing neologisms with loanwords. I would say neologisms remain neologisms until they appear in a language's major dictionaries. Say, Islamophobia will cease to be a neologism once it is printed in the OED. The best way to tell it's still a neologism is that people cannot agree on its definition, otherwise we would just cite the definition of a venerable dictionary. dab (ᛏ) 20:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  yes, or considering replacing "neologism" by an additional sentence such as "The concept and definition of islamophobia are disputed." --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 21:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Weren't we here 2 months ago? You have yet to demonstrate the definition is disputed, as per mediation. Axon (talk|contribs) 09:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Germen, you seriously seem to have issues with grasping WP:NOR. An editing  dispute on Wikipedia does not warrant mention in article space. Disputes must be notable, too, for inclusion in articles. Document the dispute, but if you are just unhappy, personally, how the term is used, I am afraid this will have no place in the article (or do you suggest a wording "some Wikipedia editors have expressed concern about these definitions"?) I am still not able to see any evidence that there is a notable dispute about the term among scholars, or even "media pundits". Sure, calling someone an islamphobe will always be pov, which is why we have no "list of islamophobes". This doesn't mean the meaning of the term itself is disputed. It's pretty much the same with homophobia and similar term. I fail to see either the point you are trying to make, or what is so bad about the definitions on the page. I am sorry if terminology as used in contemporary English makes you unhappy, but unless you can show there is debate about usage of terminology at some modest level of notability, this is an issue of your personal taste of language. dab (ᛏ) 09:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: also, the definition of the term is quite straightforward "phobia of Islam". More detailed discussions are just attempts at cataloguing symptoms, and dividing phobic behaviour from informed concern or misgivings, between which it will of course always be difficult to draw a precise line, that's completely undisputed. dab (ᛏ) 09:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: How recently does a word have to made up to be considered a neologism?

message: :Other authors ,  and  regard this point of view as one-sided. According to them, the issue whether Islamic source materials such as Qur'an and Hadith promote religious fanaticism, violent tendencies towards non-Muslims and terrorism and rejects concepts such as equality, tolerance, democracy and human rights or not, is not settled, even not between Muslims themselves. They confine islamophobia to generalised hate against every Muslim.
I notice the references for this section do not actually seem to exist: what do Spencer, Bat Yeor and Ibn Warraq actually say, what kind of "authors" are they and where are the references in question? Do they actually talk about Islamophobia or just Islam? Axon (talk|contribs) 09:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see Germen now claims the above scholars are the basis for the RTD which justifies him moving the RTD to the bottom of teh "Definitions" section, something that was not discussed here or in mediation. This is new to me: the article does not seem to describe how the RT used them to come up with the RTD, and the references are still absent. Axon (talk|contribs) 10:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The discourse by Said, Safi and Esposito is older (1980's and 1990's) than the Runnymede Trust Definition. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 11:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Age is not evidence of causation. We still have no idea what Said, Safi and Esposito wrote and even if the quotations are relevant to the topic of Islamophobia. What are these references and please quote those parts that are relevant, and please supply evidence the RTD was based on their works. Axon (talk|contribs) 11:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The RT report is not online and I do not want to spend 12 pound on it. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 11:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: So you haven't even read the report in question? How do you know it was based on Said, Safi and Esposito? Axon (talk|contribs) 11:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are no reliable sources for this section I suggest to eliminate it.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 11:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: If you wish, but if it raises legitimate points about Islamophobia it should be otherwise included seperate to the dispute that Said, Safi and Esposito are responsible for the RTD. Did you actually write this section? If not, could the editor who did please explain it. Axon (talk|contribs) 11:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Axon (talk|contribs) 14:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Spencer, Bat Yeor and Ibn Warraq

message: And furthermore, there is quotation from Said, Safi and Esposito who claim they "define" Islamophobia differently, but there is no quotation from Said and the Safi and Esposito references do not seem to exist? Can anyone take ownership of these quotation? Axon (talk|contribs) 09:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see Germen now claims the above scholars are the basis for the RTD which justifies him moving the RTD to the bottom of teh "Definitions" section, something that was not discussed here or in mediation. This is new to me: the article does not seem to describe how the RT used them to come up with the RTD, and the references are still absent. Axon (talk|contribs) 10:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The discourse by Said, Safi and Esposito is older (1980's and 1990's) than the Runnymede Trust Definition. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 11:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Age is not evidence of causation. We still have no idea what Said, Safi and Esposito wrote and even if the quotations are relevant to the topic of Islamophobia. What are these references and please quote those parts that are relevant, and please supply evidence the RTD was based on their works. Axon (talk|contribs) 11:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The RT report is not online and I do not want to spend 12 pound on it. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 11:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: So you haven't even read the report in question? How do you know it was based on Said, Safi and Esposito? Axon (talk|contribs) 11:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are no reliable sources for this section I suggest to eliminate it.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 11:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: If you wish, but if it raises legitimate points about Islamophobia it should be otherwise included seperate to the dispute that Said, Safi and Esposito are responsible for the RTD. Did you actually write this section? If not, could the editor who did please explain it. Axon (talk|contribs) 11:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Axon (talk|contribs) 14:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Said, Safi and Esposito

message: This section is almost completely uncited and contains much information that only seems apologetic to islamophobic sentiment and excuse it rather than making any actual attempt to summarise why islamophobia is on the rise. Axon (talk|contribs) 09:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Axon, you seem to think that there is a certain evil power, called islamophobia, which is conjured up by BNP and other right-wing extremists. I think the process of developing islamophobia is much more straightforward. People get confronted with Muslims on a less pleasant way, i.e. by terrorist attacks, by women which are dressing "strangely", by increased levels of criminality in which Muslims are the majority of perpetrators. They see an increasing number of people in the streets which are clearly Muslim. They read in the newspapers about what happens in Darfur, in Afghanistan during the Taliban, in Iran, in Saudi-Arabia. The buy a Qur'an with that mindset and find some verses with violence. They generalise those negative experiences to all of islam and Muslims. It is a simple and logical explanation of the development of islamophobia, which is corroborated with reports.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 11:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Axon, those reasons I cite are reasons, people give to hate Islam and Muslims at several venues. I can provide links if you like. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 11:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, that reasoning is not clear to me: the reason themselves are evidence of the reasons? What sources do you base this on? Axon (talk|contribs) 11:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  If people cite those reasons as the cause for their negative view on islam, it is reasonable to assume that these reasons are indeed the reasons for their hate of islam.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 11:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Those studies are secondary sources (in some cases even tertiary sources) and I think are not structly necessary when we avoid interpretation, e.g. as thus: "People cite the following reasons for their negative views on islam:" etc.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 11:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Indeed, they are secondary sources: that does not imply that they are somehow inferior to any other kind of source. OTOH, anecdotal evidence of individuals personal opinion is not evidence of significant minority views even (see WP:NPOV). Also, what surveys are you referring to?  Axon (talk|contribs) 11:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not necessary to point to surveys, popular weblogs and other expressions of vox populi will do. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 11:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: They almost certainly will not do for the purposes of explaining why people act and behave islamophobically on the wider scale. They are useful only as citation of politically commentary and should be attributed to the specific people in question as their personal opinion if they warrant mention at all. They should certainly not be used as evidence to back up the sweeping, generalised statements made in this section. Axon (talk|contribs) 11:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling the mentioning of three major terror attacks, the demolition of an UNESCO monument and systematic human right violations and ethnic problems sweeping generalisations is a bit over the top I think. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 11:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Not at all, if you can find studies that clearly demontrate a rise in islamophobia is clearly linked to these incidents then please feel free to include it. However, the opinions of media pundits and politicial commentators is evidence only of their personal opinion and the political positions of their respected "sides" in the debate and not objective explanation for islamophobia. Axon (talk|contribs) 12:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: At least it is a suitable explanation for their islamophobia. As those very people are criticized for islamophobia in the article, it is notable and worthy of inclusion in the article. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 13:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Strictly speaking they are accused of making islamophobic quotes not of begin islamophobic, but I agree they should be allowed to defend themselves in the article provided adequate citation is provided and it is adequately attributed. I would also specify that such references should be put in the appropriate place and that "Reasons for..." is not the place for it. Axon (talk|contribs) 14:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for Islamophobia 

message: Actually, I pretty happy (with the article as it stands with dab's last edits: bravo dab! You saved us poor fools from dispute resolution hell. Apart from my issues with the Criticism section and the "Reasons" section discussed above, the header of the article seems satisfactory to me. I would ask the Germen agrees to a truce on this sections for the time being so that we can resolve issues with the rest of this article. Axon (talk|contribs) 12:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That said, I'm not sure i understand why Germen has increased the level of the section heading in this edit: the edit was not commented and it seems arbitrary.. Despite being merely a description of Islamophobia it is still an attempt to describe it. Axon (talk|contribs) 12:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I take it back, unfortunately. Germen's recent edits are yet another attempt to get his uncited POV that the RTD can be disputed through origianl research. Please keep criticism in the crticism section, avoid weasel words ("some authors") and please at least agree to keep the section as it is which seems like a reasonable compromise to me. Axon (talk|contribs) 12:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Moving criticism to the Runnymede Trust Definition to a separate criticism section implies that the RTD is more notable than the criticism. This is clearly a violation of NPOV and hence not acceptable.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 12:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: To begin with, criticism should always belong in the Criticism section: that is where it is relevant and appropraite to put it. Criticism is generally, on Wikipedia, considered secondary to discussion of topics and always has been. Secondly, you have no relevant sources to back up your criticism of the RTD. Thirdly, you clearly reverted my edit without even bothering to discuss it or comment your edit: how do you expect to mediate this dispute acting in this way? I ask you remove the dubious text and ctiricism in question yourself and agree to leave this section as of dab's edits. Axon (talk|contribs) 12:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Criticism is relevant to the subject of criticism and nothing else. I would like a reference to Wikipedia guidelines which say that all criticism must go in a Criticism section rather than be incorporated in the main text, where it removes POV.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 12:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I would agree with your point that there is no official policy, but if you examine articles you will see that this is the general layout and agreed upon syntax... it is very much an unofficial policy but one that it still pertinent here. However, that is aside from the fact you don't actually have any evidence of criticism, Germen, as per mine and dab's comments above and on the mediation page. And, you have also started edit warring again, reverting my edits without any comment. Again, for the purposes of peace I ask you to remove the sections in question and return it to dab's version. Axon (talk|contribs) 13:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would like to make the Criticism issue a separate subject for mediation, as there are many Wikipedia articles as well which incorporate criticism in the main text. Top what particular instances are you referring? --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 13:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Aside from "where Criticism belongs", the fundamental issue, one which you have continuosly ignored, is that you "criticism" is clearly original research and does not belong in the article. I've repeteadly compromised, debated and discussed this with you, had agreement in mediation on this very topic and you continue, yet again, to completely ignore everything that has occured in mediation an unilaterally add original research to this section. We've already mediated this. Axon (talk|contribs) 13:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nowhere I draw a conclusion, I just summarize referenced facts. So I do not commit original research. Dab agreed to this.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 13:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I disagree with that assessmemnt of dab's assessment. I would ask dab for clarification here. Axon (talk|contribs) 14:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ask whatever you like. I did not call it criticism, you did. Every statement is a fact corroborated with references to primary sources. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 16:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Truce on starting section(s)

message: Once again, we see a section of "notes" on the RTD that reads more properly as a criticism. 
:...probably because the Runnymede Trust has not presented it as a definition.
Probably because!? Can we have citation for this or the remark should be removed. Axon (talk|contribs) 14:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Originally they were part of a scheme contrasting open and closed views on Islam and identifying Islamophobia with the closed views.
Citation? Axon (talk|contribs) 14:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

text: When equalizing the eight statements with Islamophobia, however, this information might be relevant
** It is not necessarily relevant according to you. It is extremely relevant according to me and a lot of other people. So I chose the compromise wording 'might be'.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 15:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Criticism" of Runnymede Trust Definition 

message: You have here an article specifically talking about a topic (Islam) in a negative manner, which is the entire point of the article; and you mark it as being in violation of NPOV. People, people, let me remind you that on some topics there *IS* no correct oppositional view. This article is about the fear of Islam. That in itself carries a negative connotation, and cannot be countered in-and-of-itself. (As form of unrelated example, I ask you: where's an article indicating the good things Hitler did?) Arguing about the NPOV status is about as useful as striking one's own eyes out with hot coals. Add to this form of thinking the simple fact that there are literally tons of articles where information is added by non-experts and then debated over by other non-experts in the field being discussed... Is it any wonder why only experts are writing "real" encyclopedias? Here in wiki-land we have editors fighting to keep things NPOV when this is sometimes impossible along additions made by non-authoritarian sources that are being foisted as valuable because of their neutrality. This is why wikis of this type are doomed to fail and why Wikipedia itself is not accepted as a true and honest source for authority. There comes a point when you have to either adapt to logic, or die.
:WP fails compared to what? It's one of its kind, and it's thriving. People don't come here for opinions, they come here for factual information. When I consult WP, it is about obscure software formats, or obscure historical personalities. I couldn't care less about the pov essays. dab (ᛏ) 16:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is why Wiki's eventually fail 

message: I had a good look at the article yesterday, and I can only say that the section titled "criticism" really stinks. Why? Because while it attempts to dispute the points made by the Runnymede trust, the points made in this section are not exactly undisputable themselfes, as can be seen above.  And worse than that - most of what is said can just as well be said lots of other religiour groups. Not to mention that it seems to fall into the trap of point 1 itself - "Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.". Funny how many Muslims would disagree with that. 
I'll list only the biggest problems I see with those "criticisms" - that does not mean that the other points are perfect. 
:1: Yes, many Muslim authorities have condemned changes and innovations. So have many other religious authorities, including, but by no means limited to, Christian authorities. Also, "many Muslim authorities" is hardly the same thing as "all Muslims" or "the whole of Islam". After all, "the Pope says" is hardly equal to "what Roman Catholics do or think", either, and unlike Muslim authorities, actually, Roman Catholics are theoretically required to follow the pope. 
: 2: So Muhammed knew and acknowledged other prophets and writings before him. Well, so did the mayority of Jewish prophets, not to mention Jesus and Christian writers. Also, Buddhism started as a reform movement of Hinduism. (And of course there are more examples than that.) Also, this "criticism" does not even address the point by the Runnymed trust - just because Muhammed "plagiarized" other writings (if one wishes to see it like that) does not mean that the result has to have many values in common or affected by those writings and prophets "plagiarized". 
: 4: So "several mainstream Islamic scholars" think that Islam should become the religion all people adhere to. (The phrase "Islam is to become the supreme authority on earth" does not make sense - a religion can not become an authority, only people or insititutions can do that.) Well, I guess the fact that there are not exactly few Christian missions and missionars out there converting people (again, so are others) is something completely differerent. There are not all that many religions out there which do not consider themselfes superior to the rest and consider it their duty to get more adherents, so what was the point here?
: 5: So Islam is also seen as a "political system". Hm, and how about religious politicians of other faiths, who proclaim that they are explicitly following their religion in making political decisions. How about explicitly religious parties? How about religious groups which demand that politics follow their teachings? Again, hardly anything Islam is alone with. 
: 6,7,8: How exactly is this criticism supposed to criticise the Runnymede points? They seem to be quite non sequitur to me. Just because some critics of Islam criticise the West as well it does not follow that the West takes criticism from Islam more serious, does it? And just because some islam-critical authors do not advocate discrimination does not mean that discrimination is not happening, does it? Same with 8: Just because some (or even many) islam-critical authors make a distinction between Islam and individual Muslims, it hardly follows that everybody else makes that distinction, too. 
In my opinion, this article would greatly benefit from a simple edit - cut that section and throw it in the dustbin. Maybe, if there is a link that provides an article with that "criticism", it would be acceptable, but this is so far from NPOV that I don't think any of this is salvagable. -- AlexR 12:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In answer to AlexR: I just cited primary and secondary sources and prove them with references before I was blocked and agreed to stop editing this page. I have given different POV's from various Muslim groups. This information, therefore, was relevant. Your response is non sequitur.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 14:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: That criticism section ''stinks''

message: For the unreliability of this quote, see the following to see the highly dubious sources used by -Ril- (taken from User talk:-Ril-#Source) (Ta bu shi da yu 01:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are these all using Google cache? And why are you quoting reader comments (ala a comment in the Guardian blog) as verifiable?! Absurd. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote is actually taken from a fictional work In the Land of Israel by Amos Oz, and has been attributed on propaganda sites to Sharon. It's a well-known hoax. See   Jayjg (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's stop this absurdity at the source: I have created an article Ouze Merham to set the record straight. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fron -Ril-'s talk page

message: I think I am getting to the core of this; it seems that the background of the Runnymede 'criticism' is the attempt to imply that Islam is in reality soo bad that it is impossible to have irrational views of it (!); more precisely, it appears that there is an attempt to replace the term with 'Islamocognition' (implying, of course, that only when you hold the worst possible view of Islam will it ever be a realistic view). This gets all of 24 google hits so far . Now, instead of all this edit-warring and oblique arguing, if we could only cite one authority who claims that the eight points of the Runnymede definition are, in fact, the only realistic view of Islam, we could put the matter to rest. If, however, no authority has forwarded this view, it is not Wikipedia's business to do so. Obviously, the people described as Islamophobes will not think they are irrational or cowardly, and will argue their views are correct, so this article can only ever be about alleged Islamophobia. We could even redirect Islamocognition here and say that some Islamophobes self-describe as Islamocognitors to counter the term, and leave it up to the reader to make up their mind; of course, there are precious few experts on Middle Eastern affairs among said "Islamocognitives", but rather people who indulge in posting pictures of their dogs eating a quran on their blogs and asking for the nuking of Mecca , so I think the balance between "irrational hatred (phobia)" and "rational cognition" rather tilts to their disadvantage. dab (ᛏ) 11:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, many Islam haters do embrace the idea of "Islamophobia" as being sane.Heraclius 23:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

text: it wasn't vfd'd so far, and it probably wouldn't be as a redirect, but of course as an independent article, it would be justly denounced as a pov fork of this article. dab (ᛏ) 17:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: the 'criticism' again

message: Not a single one of the quotes in the "Quotes Described as Islamophobic" section has a references proving that the quote has actually been described as Islamophobic by anyone. On what basis are these quotes being added to a section titled "Quotes Described as Islamophobic" if it cannot be demonstrated that they are described as Islamophobic? What we have here is a Wikipedia-run witch hunt. --Zeno of Elea 06:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly agree. It's pure original research. -- Karl Meier 15:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we need to find links in which these quotes are described as Islamophobic? I imagine they do exist, though the Ann Coulter quote would seem to me to be self-evident in it's Islamophobia. --Habap 20:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Quotes Described as Islamophobic" 

message: As dab has stated above: "if we could only cite one authority who claims that the eight points of the Runnymede definition are, in fact, the only realistic view of Islam, we could put the matter to rest. If, however, no authority has forwarded this view, it is not Wikipedia's business to do so .. If, however, no authority has forwarded this view, it is not Wikipedia's business to do so." The fact of the matter is that there is no authority that claims such a thing. No relibale source has recognized this so-called "Runnymede Definition" of "Islamophobia." Who has endorsed this definition? No one has endorsed it. Therefore it is not for Wikipedia to endorse such a thing, especially since it is being advanced by a local political lobby (Runnymede). The Runnymede "definition" was the first major section of the article and was followed by a lengthy "criticism" of the Runnymede "definition." THere is clearly something  very unencylopediac about all this. Until it can be demonstrated that the Runnymede "definition" has been endorsed or recognized by some relevant authority, it is totally inappropriate for inclusion in the article. --Zeno of Elea 06:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Runnymede trust definition is endorsed by the European Centre for Xenophobia (or something like that).  Please check it before removing it again.Heraclius 15:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is the source for this information?--Zeno of Elea 17:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Runnymede "Definition" 

message: I noticed that the entire quotes section was removed.  Zeno, would you be opposed to putting it back in under the headline "Anti-Islamic quotes" and mentioning the fact that not all of the quotes are described as Islamophobic?Heraclius 00:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not allowed to run your own witch hunt on Wikipedia space. -- well said; I may quote you on that in the future :) dab (ᛏ) 17:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The above semi-literate rant was anon (68.159.67.106) sole contribution to Wikipedia!--Irishpunktom\talk 14:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes section