Talk:Islamophobia/Archive 7

message: There is a rather bullshit part under the paragraph 'Criticism of the Concept' which basically alledges those who criticize Islam are going to organize another holocaust, or something to that effect, this does not belong under 'Criticism of the Concept' paragraph, it is not relevant, and it is not criticism, it seems to have just been added for effect. --86.137.173.9 18:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of the Concept 

message: is it irrational to be afraid of a sect of a religion (120 million people) that preach hate and violence?  i know its not ALL muslims but it is A LOT of people nonetheless.  there are 1.2 billion muslims in the world.  if only 10% subscribe to this thinking, then thats 120 million people!!  thats a lot of damn people going around preaching/supporting/teaching/condoning violence and terrorism.  thats scary to me.  and very real.
: Well my friend you are entitled to your opinon but wikipedia is not a political forum. If want to vent against muslim, I am sure you can find many other forums on the internet.
:: This is absurd. Can one comment about KKK saying it preaches hate, or is it disallowed? If KKK can be critiqued, why not Islam or any ideology for that matter? Fallacious opinions have no place in an encyclopaedia but we can’t censor factual comments about a certain doctrine just because the followers of that doctrine feel offended. OceanSplash 12 Dec. 2005, 17:22
If something is based on facts, it should be included. There are other forums for "political opinions"
:Oddly, a phobia need not be irrational. Check dictionary.com - it needs only to be intense fear.... --Habap 23:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC
Have you (whoever you are) even been to the middle east? If you haven't I highly advise you no to speak on things you have no experience of. Angrynight 03:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you haven't I strongly advise you to stay away from that craphole.  Unless of course you're looking forward to having your head sawn off with a dull knife...--LordRahl 16:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, your personal perspective on the feelings of Muslims towards the United States is not a sufficient basis for changes to the article. Bibigon 10:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: is it a phobia?

message: Problems, just a few.
# "It is mostly used to negatively characterize criticism directed at Islam whether legimate or not." That in the opneing paragraph is POV gibberish. It replaced the more accurate NPOV and Sourced statement: "The concept of Islamophobia has been questioned, with some commentators arguing that the term can also be used to censor legitimate criticism of Islam and of Muslim individuals. . They believe that is used to negatively characterize criticism directed at Islam."
# Kenan Malik is described as Muslim.  He is not.
# Kenan Malik's Criticisms of the term are placed in a section Hate crimes against Muslims.  This is obvioulsy wrong.
# The Kenan Malik link is bad.
Thats it.  These need fixing. --Irishpunktom\talk 12:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  You what? 

message: I have never believed that the word "Islamophobia" dates from the early 1990s like this article claims, since creating it from Islam+phobia is all too easy.  So I searched in an academic archive and found these usages:
* International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 7, No. 1 (Jan., 1976), page 124.
* Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 24, No. 1 (Jan., 1982), pages 6 and 7.
* Cultural Critique, No. 1 (Autumn, 1985), page 99. (This is an article of Edward Said.  I suggest looking at Orientalism (1978) for earlier uses.)
Therefore it is not true that the word was invented in the 1990s even though it seems to be true that it became a lot more popular during the 1990s.  The reason for that might have been more to do with the growth of awareness of the subject than with greater acceptance of the word, since it is the obvious word to use.  Further research into the origins of the word could be done in newspaper archives.  --Zero 23:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  OED does not have it at all. --Zero 00:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: When the word arose

message: Been a week since any talk has taken place. If problems come back, let us know at RfP. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: I've reverted User:Lajjadda's edits to this article because I don't think he added anything new to the article -- as a matter of fact, he actually made it POV. -- T-Boy 02:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting [[User:Lajjadda]]'s edits. 

message: Must be edited immediately, this article has some serious issues of bias
Yeah, it's pretty bad. Rampant fact picking. Full of weasel words like "some believe" (are two people required for "some" or is one guy sufficient?), "frequently" (is twice a year frequently?). An article on a conspiracy theory, written by the conspiracy theorists. Weregerbil 21:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  COMPLETELY Biased 

message: I am not responsible for the previous comment, but this article is indeed biased. Where is the segment regarding the rational justification of "Islamophobia?" The article jumps from the history/definition of the word, then it jumps to criticism. Don't even act like it isn't biased. Haizum 12:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tagged the article with . Hopefully somebody could write a more neutral article. --Maitch 22:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Golf Clap Thanks! Haizum 03:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made some small changes where I thought a turn of phrase was slightly POV. But I honestly couldn't see much bias one way or the other in this article. There should be even less now. I see no reason to keep the tag, but I'll await further discussion. Metamagician3000 08:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: How about the raional justification(s) for "Islamophobia," where is that section? Self-preservationists have a say too. Haizum 05:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: i. e. The growing perception that Muslims are arrogant, naïve, ignorant, hypocritical, racist, and violent. Greasysteve13 10:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can only add what we have sources for. -Will Beback 11:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Numerous internet bloggers from around the world are proof enough aren't they?--Greasysteve13 11:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bloggers are not a Wikipedia:reliable source. Newspapers are. -Will Beback 11:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Salam Pax, Anyone? Besides the following was found on "Opinions on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy" --Greasysteve13 00:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you familiar with why the cartoons were published in the first place? There was a reason to publish Mohammed cartoons, there is no similar reason to publish other cartoons. Bibigon 18:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can anyone add anything to this article about Islamophobia spreading as a result of the [[Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy]]? 

message: I've made some somewhat substantial edits to the article, regarding style, POV, sourcing, and just factually inaccurate statements. Realistically, this entire article probably needs a complete rewrite, but I’m not brave enough to attempt that. The problem is that even after my changes, it’s almost entirely speculative, without much in the way of real substance regarding what’s actually Islamophobic, and what’s not.
Regarding the EUMC report, I was wondering if anyone could find a copy of it. Because right now, the article has 6 citations to it which don’t go anywhere besides this guy Chris Allen’s homepage… Not that I don’t love neon yellow, but it’s not particularly helpful in terms of figure out what’s actually going on.  Bibigon 20:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV/Sourcing/Factual Inaccuracy Edits and the EUMC Report 

message: Hi
This is my first ever post..so whatch out! ...noob!
anyway Is it possible to link this article with the cartoon artcle:
I feel the cartoons may or may not have been a product of islamophobia and I believe that it is possible to make an argument either way
....thanks
:The two are already linked. Or did you mean something else? Bibigon 01:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking to the Cartoons. 

message: I removed the Richter quote, as I don't feel it adds anything to the idea of Islamophobia. Richter's relevance to the article in general is pretty questionable, but I left him in as he provided a slightly different interpretation on the issue(that it's simple racism.) However, the quote adds little to Islamophobia itself, and is just a generic scary consequence of what may happen. It doesn't elaborate on his point, nor does it convey any critical new concept either. It's not really related to the idea of Islamophobia being racism, so it doesn't really belong, as the racism angle in the only reason he's in the article to begin with.
Thoughts?
Bibigon 04:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wolfram Richter quote 

message: How about adding a new section "Islamophobia and the GOP"?  I think you could find a lot of examples of Islamphobia among Republicans (including the Religious Right obviously).  Just check out this very recent example (from today actually) of Republican Islamophobia.
--Inahet 07:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue with doing this sort of thing is that this incident, nor comperable other incidents can be safely labled Islamophobia. All these people would argue that they were voicing valid criticisms rather than practicing Islamophobia. That's without even getting into the whole issue of associating the GOP with Islamophobia. Without the incidents being inherently Islamophobic in nature, bringing them up is either original research or POV, depending on how you look at it. Bibigon 03:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for new section 

message: I wanted to know if there was any objection to removing the NPOV warning on this article. I think many of the concerns have been addressed, and while it's still a weak article, that's from a POV aspect anymore it seems.
Thoughts?
Bibigon 11:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I just want to say that I am neither muslim nor do I really care about whether or not this article is vandalized, deleted or whatnot. I just want to say that the blatant hate for muslims as shown here by certain users is sickening. I can understanding a hatred toward fundamentalist crazies and terrorists...but all this talk of muslims (as a whole) being naive and racist and barbaric etc....it's disheartening. The human race is a sad thing indeed. Madangry 03:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All this talk? Where is all this talk of "muslims (as a whole) being naive and racist and barbaric etc"? Bibigon 04:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "All this talk" is on this talk page...and just to clear up confusion I was talking about this talk page and not the article in question. I feel no need to point out specific examples because if you don't already see the apparent hate in the discussions above then I certainly won't be able to convince you of such. I wasn't attempting to push your buttons or spark a debate. It was simply an observation. Madangry 20:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You can read that right here on the talk page. For example: "That two Molotov cocktails were thrown at a mosque alone doesn't imply the motivation was islamophobic." This sentence is hypocritical and therefore most likely full of hate. Nobody, who is not anti-semitic himself, would ever say that "burning a synagoge alone doesn't imply the motivation was anti-semitic". In 1938 when people accused the Nazis for burning synagoges, they could have replied: "No, I don't have anything agains jews, I just don't want them to pray here." Raphael1 14:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a note 

message: Could someone please direct me to where the consensus was made to include "hostility" in the definition of Islamophobia? I have seen several articles referring to "Islamophobic hostility", but since here the word hostility is included in the word "Islamophobic", then "Islamophobic hostility" becomes a Tautology.DanielDemaret 14:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please take a look at point 8 of the Runnymede Trust definition. If hostility towards Islam is seen as natural and normal, it is a clear sign for a closed resp. islamophobic view. It basically means that even inaccurate and unfair critique will not be criticized  by an islamophobic person. Still "Islamophobic hostility" is not a Tautology, because there is "Islamophobic violence" and "Islamophobic discrimination" too. Raphael1 02:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You seem to be implying that there is a consensus in wikipedia that the Rynnymede Trust definition is the only proper definition. If this is so, then why is do I not see anyone else supporting it? I am curious: Is your definition of "consensus" that you support it, regardless of what anyone else thinks? Because that is what you are implying here.DanielDemaret 15:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you doubt, that there is a thing called Islamophobia, go ahead and start a VfD. You will probably be even successful, since a lot of people here think, that hostility towards Islam is normal and not even burning mosques has something to do with Islamophobia. Raphael1 16:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *  No, none of us doubt that there is such a thing. What in the world makes you suggest that? Oh, and thank you for signing here to make it possible for me to insert my answer here. That was very kind of you :) DanielDemaret 16:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: * As for the idea that burning mosques has something to do with Islamophobia, when I read that statement in the discussion above by Nysin, what I saw him suggesting was that there was not a necessary connection. In the particular event mentioned above, Molotovs  thrown on a Mosque in Australia, then Islamophobia seems to be a prime suspect motive, i e a most probable connection. But if one where to state  that all Mosque explosions have to have Islamophobic origins, then one would rule out all other motive possibilies. Clearly, this motive is doubtful in the Al Askari Mosque bombing case. It is not at all certain that Al Askari Mosque was bombed out of Islamophobia. DanielDemaret 17:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Come on ... you don't have to bring up the Al Askari Mosque bombing to prove me wrong. I'm not talking about the War in Iraq. I'm talking about islamophobic acts in the "West". There's no point in discussing anything that happens in Iraq, because in a war truth dies first. Raphael1 02:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * You are right. I do not have to bring up that particular Mosque. There are plenty of Mosques outside Iraq that seem to have been damaged by other muslims. I was merely using a simple example to  illustrate a piece of simple Aristotelian logic to try and make it easier for you to understand. Since it did not work, I withdraw the example. The rest of the argument is just as valid without it. DanielDemaret 19:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: As you already seemed to know, I never intentionally made your text look changed. I only remember using the word "stupid" on one occasion, referring to a poll about the rights of a minority. And why should I refrain from asking people to read something or to think about a certain issue? Is that offensive for you? Raphael1 16:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Well, what I thought was offensive was the suggestion in another article that other people did not think. I may have over-reacted and over-interpreted there. :) DanielDemaret 16:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  We both agree that there is both fear and hostility against muslims and that there is widespread Islamophobia all over. I am merely arguing that the word Islamophobia should be interpreted as fear, not necessarily hostility for Linguistic reasons, unless there is a consensus here that every single editor thinks that the word should also include the connotation of hostility.DanielDemaret 16:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As you said below, hostility is often a natural consequence of fear. There is indeed a strong connection between fear and hostility. Raphael1 17:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Absolutely. Fear very often leads to Hostility. And Hostility very often leads to Aggression. And Aggression very often leads to Violence. And Violence very often leads to Death. But in the english language is it important to keep the words separate, or language loses meaning.DanielDemaret 17:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hostility 

message: Phobia denotes fear, not hostility. Also, Agoraphobia, Arachnophobia, Xenophobia are defined as fear of squares, spiders and foreigners, not hostility towards them, even if hostility is often a natural consequence. Words should be interpreted as people intend them to mean, but in most articles I have read, the meaning has clearly been "fear". DanielDemaret 16:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's IMHO a valid critique on the term "Islamophobia". Mr. Aboulmagd, Vice-President of the Egyptian Council for Human Rights and Professor of Public Law at Cairo University, stated that the term “anti-Semitism” focused on the agony of the victim, but that “Islamophobia” focused on the subjective state of mind of the individual who felt threatened. He and Mr. Esposito (professor of  the Georgetown University) suggested the better term "Anti-Islamism". Anyway - I don't think it's necessary to dispute about words. Everybody who wants to realize Islamophobia, can easily do so. And everybody who wants to play down Islamophobia, can just as well play down Anti-Islamism. Raphael1 17:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What does this sentence mean? " Everybody who wants to realize Islamophobia, can easily do so."? DanielDemaret 17:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It means that people, who are not islamophobic themself, usually have no problem to see, that burning a mosque is without doubt an act motivated by Islamophobia. Neither will they doubt that smearing a Qu'ran with feces is an islamophobic act, etc. There is always room for speculation, if you desperately want to speculate. I.e. you can speculate whether 9/11 was an attack by terrorists or the holocaust really happened, etc. Raphael1 18:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  The term is indeed what I am concerned with. It is important that the term is correctly defined and properly used. I think that if there are people who say that there is no Islamophobia, it is because they have misunderstood the term. It is one of wikipedias missions to make the terms clear and understandable, to help people avoid misunderstandings. Misunderstandings also lead to hostility and aggressions. The examples and allegations of events that are caused from Islamophobia is a completely different matter, and I may take an interest in that later. At the moment, I merely want to make sure that the term is correctly defined, if possible. DanielDemaret 18:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Phobia]] 

message: :::I'd define Islamophobia analog to Anti-semitism as such "Islamophobia is a fear of Islam which leads to hostility toward or prejudice against Muslims as a religious, ethnic or racial group, which can range from individual hatred to institutionalized, violent persecution." But I still see Runnymedes guide very helpful for deciding what is legitimate critizism in contrast to Islamophobia (hatred, hostility, prejudice). Raphael1 12:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I support this :) DanielDemaret 12:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't support this... for a non-Muslim like Raphael1 to be unilaterally determining (without unbiased supporting citations like ) what the term "Islamophobia" means borders on the inane. According to Ahmed Kamal Aboulmagd (a well known and respected PhD holding muslim thinker), Islamophobia is a misnomer  (he went so far as to refer to the term as derogatory). Got a better idea Raphael1? Netscott 13:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I note you use the same source twice within the same paragraph, not really needed.  Also, that the Islamophobia exists is not universally shared, and that is well documented within the article, Dr. Aboulmagd is just another of that persuasion. That you feel the need to link to Wikitionary is insulting; Are you suggesting that we cannot understand English, or that we are too stupid to realise how to look up words we are unfamiliar with in a Dictionary?.  Further, Dr. Aboulmagd is not a Scholar of Islam, he's a Lawyar and former Member of Sadats government. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: * Mis-pasted, check the first source again. Netscott 14:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Grand so--Irishpunktom\talk 14:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Hmmm, I've been having difficulty finding an unbiased source for the definition of the actual word "Islamophobia" perhaps one of you gentlemen can bring such a thing to the discussion? Netscott 14:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Irishpunktom your comments regarding my citing word definition demonstrate a simpleton view of my comments. Why consider merely one's self when considering whose going to be reading this? Beside I know that for Raphael1, English is a second language. And a number of your posts have demonstrated a lack of English mastery. Netscott 14:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * How can I respect anything you say when you go around calling people simpletons and idiots? - Stop defining words, stop insulting others' use of English, if you can understand them, then can understand you - if you cannot understand, ask for clarification, likewise for others. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Merely stating that I've called anyone anything fails to demonstrate this. Read closely and you'll understand that no one has been personally attacked. My comments remain civil if not pointed. Netscott 14:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: * Daniel, my only problem with the dictionary.com cite is that it's just one citation and I think Muslims could potentially argue that it might be biased. That is the most unbiased definition I could come up with without doing a very profound search. Netscott 14:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * As far as your comments regarding the commonly accepted norm of combining word "A" and attaching "phobia" that makes perfect sense to me. Netscott 14:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't understand why Islamophobia should be defined as "prejudice towards Islam", when other forms of racism like antisemitism or sectarianism have much "stronger" definitions. 
Raphael1 16:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The concept of what this article is about is not disputed but the terminology is. During his speech Dr. Aboulmagd made a very valid point about this. I strongly recommend that other editors better familiarize themselves with what he actually said. Netscott 19:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen the UN conference where Dr. Aboulmagd talked about Islamophobia. Still the "Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia" describes islamophobia as another form of racism in this report. Raphael1 08:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Properly defining the term "Islamophobia" (Continued from previous section of talk) 

message: Ok, so can I ask the purpose of his quote being in the intro? It doesn't seem to serve any purpose, as it doesn't serve to introduce the topic, but rather add more commentary to it. Can someone mount a defense of it being in the intro? Bibigon 20:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * The whole section of talk above covers this (I've just left you a message on your talk page). Netscott 21:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, it doesn't cover this. At least not as far as I can tell. I'm not wondering why he's in the article, I'm wondering why his quote is in the intro. Maybe his quote is worth throwing into the definitions section, and summarizing in the intro, but in the current form, it's just out of place and giving his view undue primacy over other definitions and interpretations. Bibigon 21:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Well, that is the whole point, the definition is anything but clear... in the version of the article prior to my citation of his quote there was simply the statement: "the neologism is disputed." with no support of that statement. I merely edited in a very valid example of this dipute to correspond to that statement. I've been trying to find a source for the definition of the acutual word "Islamophobia", particularly one with as little bias as possible and so far I've not found much. I've checked 3 or 4 major online dictionaries and only one (dictionary.com) even had a definition. All of the other dictionaries had zilch. Do you know of a good source for the definition? Netscott 21:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Wikipedia is not in the business of defining terms. This falls under WP:NOR. Netscott 21:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This isn't about defining terms, it's about summarizing other's definitions. We have a section for that here on this article, and the current revision gives undue primacy to one particular definition. Bibigon 22:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * None of the previous 'definitions' (ie: including the term "hostility") has been supported with any sort of citations. Have you had a chance to find an unbiased source for an actual definition of the actual word "Islamophobia"? It's not unreasonable to add Dr. Ahmed Kamal Aboulmagd's view about it in the intro, he in fact was one of the first speakers (of a large number) to have expressed himself at  the U.N. sponsored seminar entitled "Confronting Islamophobia: Education for Tolerance and Understanding”. Amazingly enough after having familiarized myself with that seminar I have yet to find an instance anywhere in it where the definition of the term was actually spelled out (which is very surprising to say the least). Netscott 22:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * It must have been a bit of an embarassment for the organizers of that conference because Dr. Ahmed Kamal Aboulmagd even took issue with the word "tolerance". Netscott 22:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  All that does is make a case for removing some previously unsourced assertions in the intro, not for introducing the good Dr's definition as the primary one. I agree with your general point that much, perhaps most of this article is original research. I gutted about half of it a few months back when I came upon it, but it's still in pretty bad shape with regards to that, even after my edits to try and fix the problem. Unless Ahmed Kamal Aboulmagd was the origin of the term however, or was the only guy with a definition of it out there, then his quote does not belong in the introduction, but rather in the section on Characterizations. Then his view, along with the two others given, should be summarized and that's the introductory paragraph. Bibigon 02:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means do some editing... but leave him there as he is related to the "this neologism is disputed." statement (perhaps remove the quotes to a later section of the article)...Please know that in light of my concerns expressed below I'm probably going to submit this article for AfD. Netscott 02:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ahmed Kamal Aboulmagd 

message: We as editors are not treading on solid ground working on this article. As the following 6 top online dictionaries would seem to indicate, the term "Islamophobia" hasn't even properly entered into the lexicon of the English language.
1. Cambridge dictionary for "Islamophobia"
2. Merriam Webster's for "Islamophobia"
3. MSN Encarta for "Islamophobia"
4. Newbury House of American English for "Islamophobia"
5. Infoplease for "Islamophobia"
6. Factmonster for "Islamophobia"
Due to this fact there is a strong need to properly surveil what goes into this article for if we do not then this article has the potential to violate Wikipedia:No Original Research and actually become cited for defining what Islamophobia is. This is extremely counter to ethic of WikiPedia. Netscott 23:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll add that the online version of the Oxford English Dictionary doesn't have it either, but only "Islam", "Islamic", "Islamism", "Islamite", "Islamitic", "Islamitish", and ... "island". Nysin 00:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing on Britannica either. In fact, a search for islamophobia definition seems to be pretty much limited to Wikipedia mirrors. jacoplane 01:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow, Jacoplane.... that is some serious confirmation of my concerns! I'd almost go so far as to say that this article should be outright DELETED to prevent it becoming a major "newsworthy" case of WikiPedia violating it's own ethic (just what WikiPedia needs..). Netscott 01:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what do you think are "Human Rights Watch", "Forum Against Islamophobia and Racism", "International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights", "The Runnymede Trust", "European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia", the United Nations and just about every university with Middle-East, Arabic or Islam faculties doing? They all do research about Islamophobia. Do you really mean that Islamophobia doesn't exist, because it's not in Merriam Webster's or MSN Encarta? Raphael1 09:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rapheal1, please keep your arguments relative to WP:NOR. WikiPedia is not to be used for defining terms (which you've been attempting to do yourself on this article). This is one of the tenets of WP:NOR. Your editorial comments on this edit give me additional cause for concern: "Netscott, please stop adding the facts template all over the place. If you doubt any statement, please cite sources on the talk page, which state the opposite.". I've illustrated how this article is in jeopardy of violating WP:NOR and in that regard this article needs MORE citations not less. Netscott 09:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This article has a lot more sources than many Good Articles on Wikipedia. Deleting it? That is ridiculous! You know as well as anyone it would survive an AFD. --Irishpunktom\talk 09:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Well if you think, that the article needs more citations, go for it. I've given you some pointers where to look for research on Islamophobia in my previous post. Raphael1 10:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Tried it. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's there is quite good but I think it might be better to reverse the order and say something like "Islamophobia refers to a fear of Islam which leads to hostility toward or prejudice against Muslims as a religious, ethnic or racial group. The word is a neologism that has yet to have one clear and explicit definition. The effects of Islamophobia range from individual hatred to institutionalized, violent persecution." David | Talk 10:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed--Irishpunktom\talk 10:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  That's very good indeed. Raphael1 11:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is seriously in danger of violating [[WP:NOR]] 

message: It is false for this article to be generally characterizing events/places/views as examples of possible examples of "Islamophobia" when the very term is not clearly defined. 
 
If these examples are to remain they must be CLEARLY DEFINED as example of "Islamophobia" according to... and the individual's / organization's name who's doing the characterization. To do anything else is to be contravening WP:NOR. Netscott 11:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * <B>TOTALLY AGREE</B> so it's time to get to work in citing (and NAMING IN THE ARTICLE) who or what organization is doing the characterization! Netscott 11:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Each of the pieces this have sources, or INternal Links to this info. Stop shouting. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Hmm, I do think that having a section of "possible" cases of Islamophobia amounts to original research. At the least it is quite POV in the selection of sources. I mean, the Jyllands-Posten has publicly stated that their aim had nothing to do with Islamophobia or offending Muslims, but with experimenting with the boundaries of freedom of speech. Yet it is included here and the source seems to be one opinion by Doudou Diene. I'm Dutch and I find it interesting that Fortuijn is included in the list but Theo van Gogh isn't. Surely van Gogh was much more offensive to Muslims. In fact there are many Dutch academics and politicians who are openly critical of Islamic culture, including Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Geert Wilders, Ashif Ellian and many others. This article seems to be suggesting that the whole of Dutch political debate has taken an Islamophobic turn, yet I have many Muslim friends (half the city I live in, Amsterdam, is Muslim) that have no problem with the debate. They actually feel liberated to be able to talk without the multicultural cliches that we used to talk in and feel we need to say exactly what we feel so that we can get on with the more pressing issue of getting our problems solved so we can peacefully live alongside each other. Apologies for the rant. jacoplane 18:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Minimally, for Wikipedia to avoid establishing a definition itself by example, it should probably avoid citing anything as an example, even a weasel-word "possible" example, if it doesn't explicitly name the incident as Islamophobic itself. Nysin 22:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I tried many times to include the film Submission to the list, because both Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Theo can Gogh have been accused of being islamophobic by the british Guardian newspaper. Raphael1 08:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes. Your conclusion (Submission's islamophobic) didn't follow from your premises (the people involved in creating it are islamophic), regardless of the truth or not of the antecedent. Nysin 09:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible examples of  Islamophobia relative to [[WP:NOR]] 

message: *Blowing hard into the whistle*
Guys, you are starting to let this get out of hand. Warnings WILL be handed out if this continues. Calm down, take a step back and think things through. --OrbitOne  [Talk|Babel] 11:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have calmly initiated an AfD (second nomination) for this article due to my concerns. Netscott 11:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow,  is a role account created specifically to edit this page and of course the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, edit war only role accounts, that's a rather good idea, you should meet some of my sockpuppets, one is a british office supply clerk, the other is from canada and is the worlds youngest practicing attorney (9 years old), one of them is a cowboy, he lives in mexico and ropes steers although he's considering retiring, not as young as he used to be, and they all feel very strongly about things i feel strongly about too, I love my sockpuppets, they're such nice people with such interesting lives--64.12.116.67 00:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Netscott here, the debate has remained civil, if heated. This is a good thing if we're going to reach consensus here. jacoplane 18:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TIME OUT! 

message: It seems like Tangotango has a definition from: The Oxford Dictionary of English (ODE) (copyrighted 2003), included on his Casio XD-H9200 electronic dictionary which says: "Islamophobia > noun [mass noun] a hatred or fear of Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force."  Since it is the only reference we have to a definition, and it sounds good to me, we should use that in the article and refer to the oxford dictionary edition. DanielDemaret 14:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there anyone who has access to http://www.oed.com/ who can confirm this? jacoplane 19:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have access to oed.com, but cannot confirm that definition. I'm curious where Tangotango's Oxford Dictionary comes from. [Image:Oed_islamophobia.png] (As far as I can tell, that's acceptable copyright-wise, especially as it doesn't show any OED definitions, but I've never uploaded an image before.) Nysin 20:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The definition is NOT from The Oxford English Dictionary (OED), which does not have an entry on Islamophobia.  In fact, if you re-read his post, he actually says that it is from The Oxford Dictionary of English, not the OED.--Tim4christ17 10:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a distinction though? Anyway, I think the "ODE" can be downloaded from ZDNet. I'll try it out later. jacoplane 10:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there, yes there is a distinction between the two dictionaries. The Oxford Dictionary of English (ODE) I'm quoting is a complete rewrite of the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), and focuses on English suitable for use in today's modern world, rather than including tons of etymological information as does the OED. You may see more information about the ODE here . As for the image Nysin's quoted, I believe that's the one I posted at :Image:Islamophobia-ODE-def.jpg. Please take a look. Thank you. - Tangotango 13:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I misread the timestamp. I wasn't aware that Nysin had posted a different image before I had posted mine. As you can see from his image, the OED doesn't have this definition - I actually went to the local library and checked that. My photo (:Image:Islamophobia-ODE-def.jpg) is, as you can probably guess, of my electronic dictionary displaying the ODE definition for Islamophobia. Thanks, and sorry for the mixup. - Tangotango 14:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Though this is something of a tangent, I'll point out that the online version is more up-to-date, and for example has a section on words with new etymologies and definitions from the BBC programme Boulderdash and Piffle. Thus, while if it's not in the online version it certainly shouldn't be in the library's physical (1989, probably, last full update) copy, the converse isn't true. I guess this is fairly obvious, but it could be important that they're not actually the same. Nysin 14:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Nysin, your previous comment aside, I've just downloaded the software version of the ODE that Jacoplane suggested (see above), and I can confirm that this version (the second (and latest) edition of the ODE) too includes Islamophobia as a word. I've uploaded a screenshot here. I suggest you download the software too. - Tangotango 15:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, it seems pretty clear that the ODE lists it, making it the only non-dictionary.com reference so far. I'll agree with DanielDemaret's suggestion, then, to place it in the article. Nysin 16:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dictionary Definition from Oxford Dictionary

message: I find a scant 7 references before 1996 on Google Groups, and nearly all the new references for the next year or two appear in the same articles as references to CAIR. Not only am I deeply skeptical of the ostensible 1970 origins, but question the term's widespread validity before it caught on beyond CAIR's purview. Nysin 20:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually linked to the Google groups archive of the CAIR press release, but I can't find a copy of it on their website or anywhere else. I strongly suspect it's not a WP:Reliable source, so if someone objects and wants to move it to the talk page or replace it with another citation, I'd be fine with that. The 1970s claim had to go though. Nysin 21:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: When the word emerged

message: This user seems intent on unilaterally dictating the contents of the article. Can you at least explain what you think you are doing in the edit summary? Saying "few changes" in the summary and then reverting a lot of changes without any discussion is just not acceptable. How are we ever supposed to reach consensus on the content of this article with that kind of behaviour? I refuse to edit war with you since I follow a 1RR for myself. Also, it would be nice if you explained why exactly you find it a good idea to move back to the old referencing system. Wikipedia:Footnotes is the new accepted way of doing inline references. jacoplane 10:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted his definition change, as it was more POV than the previous version.  I also deleted both Jacoplane and Irishpunktom's comment directly following the definition, as neither reflected a NPOV  (I get the point(s) you two were trying to express, but perhaps you can express the point(s) without the use of loaded words? --Tim4christ17 10:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  - Yeah, fair enough. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, if I change back to the new footnotes system would you mind that? jacoplane 11:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok forget it, now Raphael1 reverted, again without any explanation. I give up on this article, these editors are impossible to work with. jacoplane 11:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Irishpunktom, do you have a particular distaste for the converted references?  That edit was made 7 minutes after Jacoplane's. Nysin 14:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irishpunktom edits