Talk:Islamophobia/Archive 10

message: Why the use of the word 'alledged' before examples of islamophobia. Are you trying to suggest that the claims are false? If you were Muslim you would know that islamophobia exists. I think you should remove alledged it doesn't happen on other articles about Racism.
: By hearing that a 57 old man "consumates" a 9 year old girl is a pedophile ? Limboot 19:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is biased

message: I have removed Australia from this section for the following reasons:
Sunday Herald Sun survey had a very small data sample (580) no details on the survey are supplied at all eg specific questions etc. The current reference to the survey is comments in the Green Left Weekly publication which obviously form its name alone should convince that they are pushing a POV.
 I have located the UNSW survey here []. It is comprised of a sample of 1300 people. Whilst obviously a more worthy example than the previous survey I believe that more than one survey is required before attempting to push a POV that Australia suffers from Islamophobia 
Rest of the section deleted as POV stating why Australians would be justified in hating Muslims, not really related to "Polls and Surveys"
 
I believe that a survey/poll section on such a controversial topic is not a good thing unless there are multiple surveys that are reliable and can support each others findings. A survey can be twisted in many ways and a poorly planned one means little or nothing. I will make a note on the rest of the section once I have a chance to look at its references. Ferdie33 05:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Country-specific polls and surveys - Australia

message: Reports from the EU:
*Muslims in the European Union: Discrimination and Islamophobia
*Perceptions of discrimination and Islamophobia
There's also a BBC News story on the reports. jaco♫plane 11:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reports on Discrimination and Islamophobia in the EU  

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

message: I made some deletions in the "responses to criticism" as it was large section based on just one article by a rather non-notable person. Mr. Hassans opinions in this single article was given a huge amount of undue weight, and believe that something had to be done about this. I hope that this relevant section will be expanded again, this time with a more diverse range of notable opinions. -- Karl Meier 16:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They certainly appear to be given massively undue weight at the moment. Metamagician3000 09:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. It seems that someone has restored all the stuff that I removed earlier. Anyway, I just changed it back to a more appropriate size. -- Karl Meier 15:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with both of you here.  16:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hassan

message: I am starting a new Catagory of people who are anti-Islamic. Please support this as the Jewish community have listed blatent antisemitic people.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 03:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Without commenting specifically on this category, there being a category of "blatant antisemitic people" doesn't justify this either way. Nysin 10:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New catagory

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

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

message: There is no historical information on Islamophobia here. What about Islamophobic views in the past? The Winston Churchill's quote:
 
is an example of historical anti-Islam feelings. Rumpelstiltskin223 09:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be careful of original research, though - it's not up to us to conclude that these views are examples of something called "Islamophobia" whose existence is even doubted by some people. You need to find a notable secondary source that draws such conclusions. In the Churchill case, there's no doubt that there have long been anti-Islam feelings in Europe. For example, read Othello to get the flavour of how Islam was regarded in Europe in the 17th century. But my understanding is that "Islamophobia" is supposed to be a new phenomenon, different from historical forms of anti-Islam sentiment. If anyone has compared the two we could report on that: e.g. "Foo theorises that the modern phenomenon of Islamophobia has roots in the historical antagonism towards Islam that was pervasive in Europe from the eighth century, as a result of successive wars with Arabian and Turkish conquerors." Or whatever Foo may actually have said. Metamagician3000 01:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

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

message: If irrational and baseless fear of Fascism and Fascists is Fascistophobia, then what is rational and based fear of Fascism? What a phobia becomes when the fears are well based? I belong in a sexual minority, Muslims declare and preach hate against sexual minorities and they hang gays in Iran and several other Islamic countries. My fears on Islam are well based - I take those death threats seriously. Is my disgust on Islam still a phobia? If I feel hate, disgust and fear on Fascists, am I a Fascistophobe?
: Get off your soapbox. And what about Christianity with people like Fred Phelps? // Liftarn
::Yes, the talk page is to discuss how to improve the article, not to vent our own feelings for or against Islam. The point of view of the anonymous user is already represented in the article, in so far as we describe the more notable denials that there is such a thing as Islamophobia, and the claims by some that it is applied to legitimate criticism of Islam. Metamagician3000 01:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - it is wrong if "promoting" involves beheadings, stonings, and maiming of the victims - something very common in the Islamic ideology...  69.86.18.17 07:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

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

message: This criticism section is ridiculously long. No other article on prejudice/discrimination contains anything like this at all. Is this an article on anti-Islam hate or an attempt to convince us it doesn't exist?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.149.122 (talk • contribs) 
:There are also numerous differences between Islamophobia and other prejudices. Other prejudices like antisemitism there is no doubt about the existance of. Islamophobia is a term often used to dismiss criticism, and many doubt the existance of discrimination against muslims; they consiter discrimination against muslims as dismissing criticism of islam. Criticism of islam is not discrimination against islam, and that needs to be clear. That is why the criticism section is as long as it is.--Sefringle 04:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone doubting the "existence of discrimination against Muslims" seriously has a screw loose in their head. Criticism of Islam is certainly not prejudice/hate/discrimination against Islam but there is a serious problem with a lot of what passes today under the umbrella of "criticism of Islam" -- namely, the strawman technique of pulling together the most extreme interpretations and practices and criticizing them as representative of a religion interpreted and practiced by 1.4 billion different people. --ChefGonzo 10:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think saying "islam is a religion of terrorism" is racism, you are wrong. That is not racism, especially if you can defend that claim. And to say it is is dismissing criticism. That is not discrimination. Now blowing up mosques is discrimination, but having a negative view of islam is not discrimination.--Sefringle 22:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blowing up mosques is hatred in the form of physical violence. Prejudice/hate/discrimination need not take the form of physical violence in order to be considered real or even exist. Is racism against blacks or anti-semitism against Jews, manifested in non-violent forms, not xenophobia? To pretend this kind of hate against Muslims doesn't exist is completely and utterly absurd. To say "Islam is a religion of terrorism" is a grossly exaggerated generalization and is a perfect example of the strawman technique of criticizing your preferred representation of Islam as representative of the whole. You can put together all sorts of "defenses" for that claim, but you are still working with an intellectually dishonest premise. No matter how it is practiced or what it means to 1.4 billion different people, your preferred representation of Islam is the "true" or "accurate" Islam. --ChefGonzo 00:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that is dismissing criticism. You are not comparing apples to apples. There are fundamental differences between Islamophobia and antisemitism. For one, nobody will say the phraise "Jews are trying to take over the world" is criticism of Judiasm. That is just racism. But to say "Islam is about terrorism" is criticism of Islam. It is a common topic of criticism of islam, and to say otherwise is dismissing criticism of islam. Same thing with distinguishing between ligitiment criticism of islam form illigitiment criticism of islam.--Sefringle 00:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is not dismissing criticism. It is criticizing and scrutinizing the foundation of the "criticism" itself. I agree that saying "Jews are trying to take over the world" is anti-semitic -- the same way I also believe that saying "Muslims are trying to take over the world" is islamophobic. I am not the type of person who would point to extremist conservative elements in the West Bank building settlments in illegally occupied territories year after year, and interpretations of the Torah that argue that God promised Israel to the Jews, and point to the Jewish lobby groups in the United States and claim that all these groups are representative of Judaism's quest to manipulate the international community in their favor. At the same time, it is exactly this line of thinking I see being used when discussing Islam. IMHO, this a severe case of double standards. --ChefGonzo 02:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism Section

message: Could people say why the survey section is original research? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I mentioned above, the material that I deleted from there didn't say anything about any "Islamophobia", but just mentioned various opinions of people that participated in some specific surveys. For us to include such material is to imply that these opinions is somehow "Islamophobic", and that is original research. -- Karl Meier 21:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am OK with the survey section being there, however only sourced statistics should be mentioned, and they should use similar words to the origional source--Sefringle 02:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that it is also important that the statistics that we include, is relevant to the articles subject. I believe that it is not enough, that it is relevant according to our original research. -- Karl Meier 06:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People don't have to use the word "Islamophobia," because this isn't an article about the use of the word, but about the concept. So long as the sources are clearly talking about that, it's WP:POINT to insist that the actual word must be used. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as there is no accusations or mentioning of so-called "Islamophobia", then how is it not original research for us to suggest that these surveys are somehow relevant to a discussion about the concept of "Islamophobia"? Why do you believe that these surveys should be included in our article? -- Karl Meier 14:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Surveys

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

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

message: I do not agree that the Kofi Annan quote should be included in the lead.  I think it adds very, very little to the article.  Furthermore, Kofi Annan is not an expert on Islam (I don't even think he is a Muslim, though I could be wrong about that).  Is Kofi Annan's views on Islamophobia any more notable than Ban Ki-moon's views or Boutros Boutros-Ghali's views on the subject? I propose the removal of the third sentence of the first pargaph of the article.  --GHcool 20:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with this view. His view is only notable in that he's led the U.N. It would be more logical if a scholarly source on the subject was quoted in the lead.  20:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: OK.  If nobody disagrees by Tuesday, I'm going to delete the Kofi Annan sentence from the lead.  --GHcool 18:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GHcool, I restored it because it was part of the compromise lead agreed to. It's clearly relevant what a very recent Secretary-General of the United Nations says, and even more so given that he's explaining how it's a new term, which is what our lead says, so it speaks directly to that issue: that it's new and that it's notable. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SlimVirgin, I respectfully disagree.  I do not understand your reasoning.  The quote certainly relates to Islamophobia and was said by a recent UN secretary-general (and non-Muslim), but why should it necessarily follow that the quote should be included in the lead.  As a counterargument, I ask you if you would accept this quote from Kofi Annan in the lead of the anti-Semitism or new anti-Semitism article: "Anti-Semitism has flourished even in communities where Jews have never lived, and it has been a harbinger of discrimination against others.  The rise of anti-Semitism anywhere is a threat to people everywhere.  Thus, in fighting anti-Semitism we fight for the future of all humanity." I would say that although Annan's view might be worth mentioning within the article, he is not an expert on the subject or even a victim or perpetrator of the phenomenon and so it does not seem logical that a quote from Annan would get such a prominent place in the lead.  --GHcool 03:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recall there being a consensus on the Kofi quote, but I have to agree with GHcool 100%.  Kofi Annan was little more than a corrupt politician who left his position at the U.N. in disgrace.  Kofi Annan is not any kind of authoritative source on Islamophobia.  In fact his family made lots and lots of money from the oil-for-food scandal, thanks to a sunni-muslim named Hussein- as far as he is concerned, Islam is the bee's knees, it made his family rich.  I'm not saying the quote should not be included somewhere, but the lead is an inappropriate place for Kofi's comments.  On the same token, George W. Bush is not quoted in the lead on Islamofascism even though he's made comments on the term.  I think it is good that Bush is NOT in the lead over at that article, we should take that example to heart on this article as well. --ProtectWomen 18:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for agreeing with me, ProtectWomen, but I prefer we stay on the topic of this article and not criticize Kofi Annan in aspects of his life that do not pertain to the quote.  I'm sorry if that seems rude, but I don't want to get too far off topic.  That being said, if SlimVirgin or anybody else that disagrees with me does not respond to me on this talk page, I will delete the Kofi Annan quotation from the lead on Friday, March 30 (Los Angeles time).  --GHcool 02:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kofi Annan in the lead 

message: here. Thanks. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 17:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note: Please see the village pump policy discussion regarding the title of this article 

message: Zbigniew Brzezinski (John Hopkins University & Former National Security Advisor) and Diana Ralph (Carleton University) have both written/spoken about how Islamophobia is provoked and used by neoconservatives in the US administration.ChefGonzo 01:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is just a bit hypocritical on Brzezinski's part, since he helped get the ball rolling with his "Arc of Crisis" stuff back in the Seventies. This article ought to also mention Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington as prime movers behind the emergence of this phenomenon. --Tsunami Butler 00:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brzezinski and Ralph 

message: Why is Jehanzeb Hasan, a mere research assistant without any claim to importance, deemed notable enough for his views to be presented in this article? Why is furthermore 90% of the "Response to criticism" section devoted to his views? What is his photo doing in this article? And why is Media Monitors Network where his opinion piece was published deemed a reliable source? Beit Or 20:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points. Who included the section in the first place?  I'll start by removing his photo, as it is irrelevant. --ProtectWomen 20:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree. Thanks for the sharp eye, Beit. I notifed Slimvirgin here about this, who had inserted this. It will be interesting to see her defense here. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 02:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jehanzeb Hasan 

message: Islamophobia is an insult of people who are against islam. Therefore it is in my opinion oblied for an independant encyclopedy to link to some reply as Matthias Storme's "fobomania. Limboot 05:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fobomanie Limboot 16:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Linked to [[fobomania]]

message: Islamophilia is a controversial neologism. Islamophilia is an opposite term for an other controversial neologism (Islamophobia). Islamophilia is used for non-muslims who are ,according for example Daniel Pipes to much sympathysing with the ideology Islam. The highest level the word islamophilia reached was a cover article of Dutch opinion magazine Elsevier about the Quran journalist Gerry van der List used the word "islamophile" in the quote "the islamophile theologe Karen Armstrong.
See also PhobomaniaLimboot 04:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, when the article is unprotected again, you could write a section about it in this article? It seems very much relevant to include information regarding these issues here. -- Karl Meier 06:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IF it gets un-protected. Hopefully that can happen if we can prove it is notable enough.--Sefringle 06:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course good sources will have to be used, and the notability of the issue will have to be established. However, I don't see any reason why we should doubt that the article will eventually be unprotected, and it is in our power to speed up the process by working towards a compromise. Sefringle, what is your thoughts about the suggestion for a compromise that has been made in the section below. If you can agree to it, and if you don't have any further concerns, I will ask that the article is unprotected. -- Karl Meier 12:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Islamophilia]] is deleted and protected, no islamophilia doesn't exist whuhahahaha 

message: KazakhPol, can you please explain your reasons behind your POV pushing edit to this page?--Sefringle 05:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I am biased towards not including redirects when the link already redirects on its own. Unfortunately, it has affected my edits. I also have a strong anti-random comma POV that I push. KazakhPol 05:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am specifically referring to your removals of the word "alleged" when referring to Islamophobia.--Sefringle 05:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: While I disagree with his edits he is not trolling. Sefringle and Karl Meier, If the only part of my edits you disagree with are the removing of "alleged" then please re-add "alleged" rather than doing complete reversions. I oppose including "alleged" in the section headings because the alleged-ness of the instances discussed is made clear within the paragraph. Note that I am usually accused of having an anti-Islam bias. KazakhPol 16:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: guess you got a new review to add that says just the opposite!--Sefringle 04:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Alleged needs to be in the section titles, because Islamophobia is contraversial, and to label certian views or actions as islamophobic is POV pushing, as many would disagree that such actions or views are actually a prejudice act.--Sefringle 03:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that alleged is needed. We are here to present notable opinions, not to endorse them as facts. As for KazakhPol's suggestion regarding a compromise, my answer is no. The other sections titles will have to remain as they are too. If that is accepted, then I will agree to the compromise. -- Karl Meier 18:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is what I mean. The previous section titles are fine. I agree. KazakhPol 04:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. If there is no other concerns by anyone here (NPOV related or otherwise), I guess we can request that the article is unprotected and adjust it according to this agreement. -- Karl Meier 06:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the first place we could mention that "islamophobia" isn't a part of the dictionary of the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary "just like the opposing term islamophilia". Anyone a more independent suggestion ? Limboot 16:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent dispute

message: This section seems to have some serious problems, especially due to the fact that the majority of its content or in other words everything except the first part which discuss the Runnymede Trust definition, doesn't seems to discuss or make any attempts to define the concept of Islamophobia. Everything except the part that discuss the Runnymede Trust definition seems to be off-topic and largely irrelevant to the subject that section is supposed to be discussing. I suggest that when the article is unprotected all the off-topic content should be either be moved to more appropriate sections or if in specific cases that is impossible to do properly, be deleted or moved to the articles discussion page. Anyone that agree, disagree or have any comments regarding this? -- Karl Meier 18:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of it should be deleted. KazakhPol 04:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Much of it seems to be pontification on the subject of race as opposed to an attempt to actually define the term. But I wouldn't chop everything except Runnymede without also having another source to add that directly attempts to define the term; some of the sources Rokus added to Criticism of Islam recently could perhaps be mined for this. - Merzbow 07:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that more than just one definition should be included, and perhaps we could start by moving Stephen Schwartz and his definition to this section? -- Karl Meier 07:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like his definition, but I know heat is going to be generated by those who don't think FrontPageMag should be cited anywhere (a bogus argument, it's clearly notable in the genre of modern political commentary about Islam and the Middle East). I'd suggesting including that plus something else so we have three sources; I would then vigorously defend the FPM cite as an alternative definition of the term by those from the right (who are often accused of Islamaphobia themselves). - Merzbow 07:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is reasonable to consider the definition by Stephen Schwartz to be an alternate definition from those that are often accused of Islamophobia themselves. His article might have been published in FrontPageMag, but fact is that he is an Islamic convert and a practicing Muslim, and I find it hard to imagine a situation where anyone would call him an "Islamophobe". Reading the article it seems to me that he is defending the way that the concept is currently being used by among others Islamic organizations. This being said, I support that another (notable) definition should be added. Until we find such a notable definition, I believe it we should stick to the two definitions that we got, and clean up the section by moving the off-topic content there to other sections (if and where possible). -- Karl Meier 13:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine with me, I was just trying to anticipate possible objections. - Merzbow 17:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Attempts to define the concept

message: :Category:Anti-Islam sentiment was recently deleted per the CFD. Can someone remove the category?--Sefringle 04:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. -- Avi 19:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: deleted categroy

message: So where are we talking about? Wiki.en is very non-independant by placing an article about "islamophobia" and then also by deleting every link to the opposing "neogolisms" Islamophilia and phobomania (and even banning me for it) Limboot 16:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You were blocked for WP:3RR, it's nothing personal. As for the other two articles, they have/are being deleted because sources were not provided in accordance with WP:NEO. - Merzbow 17:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strange that Islamophilia and Phobomania are accepted articles on dutch wiki. Futher I had a link for Islamophilia out of the largest dutch opinion magazine (Elsevier) but I you keep deleting. Limboot 18:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not see the article before it was deleted but one link isn't enough to source an article on a neologism. WP:NEO is applied pretty strictly; multiple English-language sources are needed. - Merzbow 18:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now seeked for a quartor for an hour but I can't now not find the link. Congratulations ! 18 june 2005 Gerry van der List Elsevier "koran een verontrustend boek". Not a link to (the cover article) of Elsevier but http://ayaan.web-log.nl/ayaan/2005/06/de_koran_een_ve.html "the islamophile theologe Karen Armstrong". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Limboot (talk • contribs) 18:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "islamophobia was not found in the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary"

message: Copied from my talk page
Limboot 17:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Discussion" about the top of these article. About what criticizers see as "islamophobia" and it is not placed in reliable dictationairies

message: See under antisemitism .
So  Danish politician Bashy Quraishy have written that islamophobia and antisemitism are two sides of the same coin.UNObserver & International Report: Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia – two sides of the same coin. Also according wikipedian definition also critism of judaism is characterized to antisemitism[http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/antisemitism "hostility to Jewish people as a religious, etnic and racial group  
:Of course the mods are to busy to delete the article in stead of discussing. Wikipedia insist on that definition of antisemitism. So take the consequence: islamophobia = antisemitism is no news, (according wiki of course) antisemitism —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Limboot (talk • contribs) 17:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion about how also critism of judaism (another religion then islam) is criminilized as "antisemitism"

message: Does such a category already exist, or is there one similar to it?Bless sins 22:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this a rhetorical question? You have been here (Wikipedia) for a pretty long time now. Why would you ask whether or not it exists when you can plainly see it does? Are you trying to make a point? KazakhPol 22:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It did exist, but per the previous CFD, it was deleted.--Sefringle 02:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:Islamophobia

message: *Hello, as I read through this article, I was struck by the degree to which the article is dedicated to ideas criticle of the very concept that anti-Islamic sentiment can exist. In fact, the article seems to question the reality of discrimination against individuals and minority groups of people who are Muslim. I believe this needs to be discussed, and I added the appropriate tag by which to garnish the needed attention. Padishah5000 00:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. When both Dictionary.com and the Oxford American Dictionary define "Islamophobia" essentially the same way it is ridiculous to write a wikipedia article saying "some say it is defined this way," but we can't just relay that information because Salman Rushdie and Kenin Malik think the issue is exaggerated or confused. The BBC and here routinely uses the word in the received manner, as does the National Review, the AP,  CNN, Newsweek, you name it. But a little group of writers get together and say the term is misused and overused and suddenly we can't even define the term. I wonder if I wandered over to the antisemitism page and called the entire "concept" of antisemitism "controversial" how they would take that. If you actually read Malik, by the way, he doesn't deny that the prejudice exists, he just thinks the term is overused and misused. MarkB2 20:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, 100%. Padishah5000 07:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is the point that "islamophobia" should not be called as one site of the same coin as antisemitism NOW ANTISEMITISM IS MISUSED AS THE SAME AS CRITISM ON JUDAIC RELIGION ("antisemitism is critism on jews as a religious group (instead of an etnic and racial group). See antisemitism. POV Tag there even deleted so critism on judaism religion is for the fully 100 % seen as "antisemitism" !!!!! Limboot 20:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, antisemitism is prejudice against Jews as a race, and someimes against jews as a religous group. There is a difference between prejudice and criticism. Prejudice against a religion means persecution or hatrid of a person becasue of their race/religion. Criticism of a religion is just presenting arguements for why a religion is stupid or evil; it is not the same as saying all people of a certian religion are stupid or evil.--Sefringle 14:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a very fine line between criticism and prejudice. The current article appears to be an example of that. Padishah5000 07:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, seeing how many critics of Islam are wrongfully accused of being Islamophobes.--Sefringle 05:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Tag

message: Could we come to a consensus as to eliminating the whole "defined by some" line from the header? "Islamophobia" is in the OED. In fact, it's in every dictionary that's been published in the last decade. It's used in the received manner in every major news outlet in the Western World. Case closed. 
Could we also get Malik and Salman Rushdie's criticism of the term out of the header? They have their space in the criticism section. MarkB2 14:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: s/defined by some/defined by an overwhelming majority/ - Without trawling through the history, have any other definitions been attributed to reliable sources? (I know that there have been more than a few flakey definitions.) If not, I see no issue - A definition can hardly be held to be POV if it is the only V that can be supported. If there is a significant (and verifiable) minority (no pun intended), an entry in the main article space might be worth considering. - Tiswas(t) 14:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I've waited long enough. I'm removing the weasel words "defined by some" and simply replacing them with the OED definition. I'm also getting Malik and Rushdie's criticisms out of the header. MarkB2 02:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

text: If that was your proposal, your edit showed a different intention. In your edit, you completely removed it.--Sefringle 05:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose that you leave as it is now. NPOV require balance. -- Karl Meier 20:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Header 

message: this is a good example of weasel wording, even more so as it's in the first sentence. the Runnymede trust doesn't dispute that it's a characterisation of anti-Muslim or anti-Islam sentiment, so inserting such clauses to obscure the notion of agreement over its definition is unencyclopedic. ITAQALLAH 21:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It is an example of weasal wording, and should be removed. Padishah5000 00:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed It should be removed.Umer Al-Amerikee 01:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed You can't get much more authoritative than the dictionary. - Merzbow 01:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Accept your change to "generally" is acceptable in my opinion.--Sefringle 05:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: please do.--Sefringle 06:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will. It will have to mention that the concept also include political opposition to and criticism of Islam. I will work a bit on the wording and include it later today. -- Karl Meier 06:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great.--Sefringle 06:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  The critics definition of the concept should properly also be included somehow. -- Karl Meier 06:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean? I don't understand.--Sefringle 06:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "by some" 

message: WP:OR, WP:NPOV & WP:V must be adhered to, particularly in an article that attracts as much controversy as this one -  tags are no substitute for properly sourced, neutral comments - Tiswas(t) 12:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding new informations versus [[WP:OR]], [[WP:NPOV]] & [[WP:V]] 

message: Im a British christian, so don't anyone assume Im stating this because I have some pro-muslim bias, but its pretty dam obvious this article is written from an American and British POV, when I originally thought this was a world encyclopidia, maybe it isnt, and mabye it is meant to contain information from a purely American and British general perspective of ignorance and prejudice, I honestly dont know, but I though if an encylopidia was meant to be one thing it wasn't mean tto be ignorant in aproach to writing its articles. There are several thiings wrong with this article, but the main one I think is probably the fact that whereas the term islamophobia is (loosely) defined as soon as we hit the criticism section its implied it dosen't exsist, and is always used as a 'stupid' insult from people who don't know any bettter insulting intellectually correct people who (it can be assured) are always correct and their criticism of islamophobia must have no personal bias, simply because they are so obviously intelligent. Why the numerous references of critics of islamophobia in this article are treated as if they are omniscient infallible beings I have no idea, but despite the writer's own views I think it is important to realise the scope of prejudice against islam (unjustified I mean) which exsists, period. Whether this is islampohobia is a matter of dispute, although I think the term islamophobia often refers to anti-islamic prejudice, I think the main defenition of phobia being an IRRATIONAL fear. The article should constantly be written as If though islamophobia is just a way 'stupid' people criticise people who criticise their religion and then go on a lengthy explanation saying just how islamophobia is a way of shutting up critics (without giving another POV) and then imply it has no links to anti-islamic prejudice, and then saying 'oh wait scrap that, It dosent exsist anyway so theres no debate here'. 
Now although the article isn't written quite as simply as that it is obvious to me it only gives half the story and uses weasel words all the way through the article, to bad its not obvious to all us westerners who (all to frequently, in my opinion which no one cares about) write these articles as if were in the 19th centuary studying a particularily intresting but stupid species of bird, and then implying how primitive and backwards these different cultures are because they don't share our western perspective or morals, and how we in the west have the right to judge other cultures because we are so impeccable in our actions and behaviour all the time, and how the west's view of the world is viewed as the 'right one'. I am no homophobic, but as some overpersonal guy wrote up to somewhere he views islam as a threat because he is part of a sexual minority (I assume, possibly wrongly your homosexual). Now although islam sometimes may be viewed as WRONGLY prejudiced agaisnt homosexuals(from the wests POV, and mine), that dosent neccessarily mean that we are better (and more correct neccessarily) than people in these countries because we are more liberal to homosexuality, and we can look at them like primitive ants through a magnifying glass, its all a POV, which wikipedia whoudl be free of. As long as there is no  homophobic comments in wikipedia I don't see it as neccessary to look at other societies as more primitive because they are less liberal to homosexuals (who knows ultimately what is right and wrong, despite their own opinions). Now this may seem as jsut off point and one example, but I think this kind of overly (morally correct? is the word/s) highground we westerners sometimes take should not be transferred into any wikipedia article, much less one about prejudice.
sorry about my spelling, I am dyslexic, feel free to correct me if you so wish.
P.S. Im writing this a little later than the above entery, I just wanted to say a lot of the writing on this page is a waste of perfectly useful binary code. ProtectWomen (as some others) obviously has some issues with islam personally, it may be possibly due to her/his name that I can glean why, but I thought (in my humble opinion) the editors of wikipedia (in fact any encylclopedia) were meant to leave any personal opinions of topics out of the spectrum. If you want to make a site that says 'Islam is a religion where its practitioners believe in raping and beating women every day, then doing it during the night, and they also hate gays, but I dont think muslims are bad im just saying that their religion and their beliefs suck' then you may do this if you wish (but on a personal note I may narrow down the title) however whatever you may think of a religion (and what you think of a religion, whichever way you cover it up or portray it, invariably reflects on your opinion of the belivers of that religion, because to a greater or lesser degree they will invariably follow the teachings of that religion) is not relevant (or so I think, excuse the bracket spam) to wikipedia. Opinions about whether islamophobia is just a way of people silencing criticism, of those most invariably respectable and intelligent right-wingers (who not for a second would contemplate prejudice or intollerance), against islam is purely a matter of opinion and is not waht this article is about, the mention that islamophobia is seen sometimes as a way of silencing criticism should not take up more than a paragraph, and the fact it dosen't betrays the POV of most of the editors here. The Islamophobia article should be mainly about what is deemed as islamophobia, and who is generally seen to have commited it (as it is seen as an act of prejudice), the criticism section should be little more than a passing note, if you are neutral you should have no problem with this, as long as criticism is show without the article turning mainly into 'Criticism of islamophobia termanology', If you wish to have debates as to why islam sucks in your opinion go on some republican website somewhere. 
PS., PS. protectwomen, just so you know, wikipedia is probably not the best place for you if you wish to campaign for women's rights, that should probably done on a charity website or something, maybe debating one (ive got no problem with women's rights or with you, just agaisnt wikipedia possibly being distorted to be used for campaigning, where its purpose is to inform objectively). Also, although constantly under the media spotlight as a religion which is totally against womens rights, and which advocates locking women in a closet for 300 years+, islam was actually possibly the first religion to accept that women had rights as such, well before Judaism and christianity in the west. Also I think you should know (im telling you this not just from statistics, but from personal knowledge, being an objective, generally, British citizen) that, at least in the UK, and many other more liberal muslim countries like Lebanon, Jordan, Iran etc (though maybe not in Pakistan, Saudi, two American sponsored areas btw) many muslim women would feel patronized and offended to be told they are treated terribly by their husbands and submit to islam because their husbands make them, many muslim women choose to live the way they do with their intelligent female brains which by your name I can tell you believe in. Just because they don't live the same lives as we do in the west it dosen't mean they live horrible lives, or don't liek the way they live. Whereas in the west it is usual for women often to be considered sex-objects, and get goggled at constantly, many women In the middle east prefer the greater (often though not always, in areas such as pakistan which has its own problems not wholly caused by islam)
respect given to them in the sense they are treated as though there are other things to them except their physical body's. Now whether you may think this is right or wrong is completly a matter of opinion, but when looking at thes topics its important to remebr that just because something seems restrictive and wrong in our society, sometimes people in other societies prefer thing the way they are, and wouldnt testify to them being restrictive at all, jsut different. If you want to find a common enemy that is against women's rights you should possibly pick on women beaters in the USA and the UK and Europe, as there are enough of them t be getting on with, then afterwards you can sart picking on theones in other cultures (just so you know much of the oppression found in some arab nations, is infact not a product of islam but simply cultural tradition, as is female circumcision which takes place in mainly christian societies in Africa).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.207.67.140 (talk) 
:Thank you for your comment. I totally agree, that some articles are written from an American and British POV. This  comes from the fact, that content decisions are done by "democratic means" (should I say "mob rule") although Wikipedia is not a democracy. Unfortunately even administrators are indeed biased and some won't hesitate to block you to get their (content) decision through. I once compiled a list of blocks, which I considered unfair. In the end, the list got deleted and I got blocked for writing it.--Raphael1 00:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you signed your edits (with ~~~~), you wouldn't need to explain the chronology of your edits. Either way - The article needs to remain neutral, with verified information - It is not a place for synthesis, opionating, grandstanding or soapboxing. Or, put less tactfully, is doesn't matter what you think on the subject, just that you can report what others think, and that you can back it up, and do so dispassionately. - Tiswas(t) 15:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: What's really weird is the Conservapedia article on this  is probably more NPOV. Addhoc 11:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Their intro line is better, we should steal it. --Coroebus 18:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Addhoc 12:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obvious an article written by mainly English/American people, but what do you expect? 

message: Karl, regarding your query about Hasan, he is a scholar (albeit a junior one); his paper was published; it is interesting, intelligent, and informative. In fact, it's the only decent argument (argument, as opposed to polemic) in the article.
I thought we had an agreement about this. I made some concession a few weeks ago on a number of issues, as did you, and we reached a compromise. Are you going back on it? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, of course not. My intention was only to encourage you to clarify your position on this issues here. On second thought, actually, I want to stay out of this discussion. -- Karl Meier 21:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no such thing as a "compromise" here. This is an encyclopedia. I too can start making deals about comprising this and that, but what we'll be compromising in the end is the quality of the encyclopedia. Hasan is non-notable, period. How is he a junior scholar of Islam? Are junior scholars of Islam Reliable Sources? How am I not a junior scholar too? See? We have to abide by RS and notability. The point is: It doesnt matter how interesting an opinion is. If its not a RS and if the subject is not notable, it cant be included. More so, the opinion is nothing new. Please read WP:RS, which says: Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Tell me how Jehanzeb is trustworthy and authoritative in relation to the subject of Islam. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely we can all agree that the photo has to go? Who are/what is Media Monitors Network?  We don't seem to have an article on them.  When you said "published" I assumed you meant in an academic journal. --Coroebus 19:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hasan

message: The term isn't used to refer to alleged prejudice; it is used to refer to prejudice. You can say of any given incident that it is not prejudice (that is, that the term is being used wrongly) just as you can say of any given table that it's not really a table. But just because you can question the correctness of the term's use doesn't mean that the word "table" refers to alleged tables. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my explanation below. What you say is basically right. But some people maintain that "alleged prejudice" does exist, and this is one side of the controversy around the term. There is not uncommon to give some crude classification, to stress that some distinction must be drawn. For example, one may see a phrase "real or fictional people", because the default meaning which pops in your mind for the word "people" is "real people", and the usage of the word "or" is a precaution against a possible preconceived notions.  `'юзырь:mikka 00:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The term is overused far too often to refer to Criticism of islam as being prejudice aganinst muslims. That is why it is alleged. There is doubt into wheter many allegations of Islamophobia are really prejudice against muslims. While this is somewhat true for Anitemitism, it is usuaully clear who hates Jews, and who is just critical of certian aspects of Jewish culture and religion. Antisemitism also isn't used to the same extent to dismiss criticism as Islamophobia is. There really isn't much comparision.--Sefringle 09:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Writing

message: The literal definition of the word Islamophobia is: "Irrational fear of Islam". A Phobia is "An irrational or obsessive fear or anxiety, usually of or about something particular.", so Irrational fear of Islam, makes sense. And since this is the literal meaning of the word, it must be mentioned in the first sentence in brackets as we have now. Anyone who opposes this? (specifically SlimVirgin, Itaqallah and AddHoc)? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: see WP:OR. please substantiate your assertion with academic resources. the four used for the first sentence do not support this i believe. ITAQALLAH 13:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I quoted Phobia from Wikitionary to support the meaning that its an "irrational fear". Thats the literal meaning of Phobia. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've given a ref now from Daniel Pipes and its now "undue fear of Islam". Everything must be ref'd. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literal meaning of Islamophobia 

message: IMHO the article table of contents must clearly contain two major sections: 
*actual discrimination against Muslims 
*alleged misuse of the term in reference to criticsm of Islam.
For example, it is unclear what current section title "Criticism" means. It may be either criticiam both of fist and second use, or even the second (ab)use itself. I wopuld have done it myself but unfortunately I cannot devise good enough section titles. Please comment. Mukadderat 16:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article structure

message: I would like to bring your attention to recent campaign of deletion of a big number of articles on similar topics, listed in  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albanophobia. Mukadderat 16:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other national phobias

message: Why is the EUMC report so important that it should have it's own section? I suggest that the content there is merged into one of the other sections, where the material would be appropriate. -- Karl Meier 17:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The organization is a notable and reliable one. You would certainly have a point if there were many reports, then giving EUMC a section would amount undue wieght. But that's not the case.Bless sins 22:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: EUMC report

message: It suddenly dawned upon me which logical error is in the definition and how it can be easily explained. "discrimitation against muslims" is Islamophobia", but "alleged discrimination" is "alleged Islamophobia"!  My brain was stuck on the assumption is that the whole discussion is about denying that some cases are only allegations of dicrimination. If only all editor's misunderstandings could be resolved in such a simple way... Apologies again. Mukadderat 23:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. :) - Merzbow 23:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No worries. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Apologies for disturbance

message: *Malik’s views have been misrepresented by taking them out of the context of his article (see http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16735).  If you read the entire article, it’s clear that his criticisms are made in a specific context:  The United Kingdom after 9/11.  For example, he says ““Britain is a different place now—even for Muslims. There are still racist attacks. Early in December, three young Muslims were beaten up in Manchester by a 15-strong gang in what the police described as a "dreadful racial attack." Yet we have moved a long way from the 1970s and 1980s, and I get little sense of the intensity of racism that existed then. “Its clear that he doesn’t think it’s a myth in the sense that it doesn’t exist, just that the concerns about it in post-9/11 Britain are overblown.
*I think the article gives undue weight the criticisms of Islamophobia see WP:UNDUE.  Most of the material in the article seems to be about criticism of the idea rather than the idea itself.  It’s pretty clear that the critics hold a minority view.  You have the Runnymede Trust, EUMC, and ABC News (see http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=1700599) on one hand and some people I’ve barely heard of on the other.  The weight of the article should be on the actual concept, not the criticism.
*I’d like to include material from and ABC news article (see http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=1700599).  There is some good material on prejudice against Muslims:
:: “Public views of Islam are one casualty of the post-Sept. 11, 2001 conflict: Nearly six in 10 Americans think the religion is prone to violent extremism, nearly half regard it unfavorably, and a remarkable one in four admits to prejudicial feelings against Muslims and Arabs alike. 
:: “27 percent of Americans admit at least some feelings of prejudice against Muslims;”
::“More than four in 10 say they've recently heard prejudiced comments against Arabs, and about a third say they've heard biased remarks against Muslims. About one in six say they have friends or relatives who are outright prejudiced against these groups.””
*I want to reiterate the issues I have with the material related to Yasmin Alibhai-Brown.  It seems to have been removed, but since removed material seems to have a way of reappearing, I want to make my objections clear.
:“Malik cites Yasmin Alibhai Brown, who writes: "It is not Islamophobia that makes parents take 14 year old bright girls out of school to marry illiterate men ..." Malik argues that Islamophobia is not a form of racism because Islam is a belief system. "I can be hateful about other beliefs, such as conservatism or communism. So why can't I be hateful about religion too?"”
:#I find this passage problematic because while the actual quote is sourced, the material in the quote is not.  Including it in this context implies that the religion of Islam is somehow responsible for unidentified illiterate men marrying unidentified 14 year old girls with the permission of their unidentified parents.  Who are these men?  Who are these girls? How is Islam responsible?  The quote simply drags Yasmin Alibhai Brown’s unsupported opinion into the article.  It’s unclear to me if her quote is from “credible published materials with a reliable publication process.”
:#The passage has been taken out of context.  The actual passage is “Some also point the finger at cultural practices within some Muslim communities.”By and large," the journalist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown acknowledges, "the lowest achieving communities in this country are Muslim. When you talk to people about why this is happening, the one reason they give you, the only reason they give you, is Islamophobia." It is not an argument that Alibhai-Brown accepts. "It is not Islamophobia that makes parents take 14-year-old bright girls out of school to marry illiterate men."
:Alibhai-Brown disagrees with me about the extent of Islamophobia, believing that it is a major force shaping Muslim lives. But, she adds, it has also become "a convenient label, a figleaf… and all too often Islamophobia is used to blackmail society."” (see http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16735).  This makes it clear that she thinks that Islamophia is a problem for Muslims, a fact not reflected in the material included.
*I think the Rowan Atkinson material should be removed. I don’t see how anyone can accept Rowan Atkinson as an authoritative source on Islamophobia or legal issues in the United Kingdom.
*I propose trimming the lists: Efforts against alleged Islamophobia, Alleged acts of Islamophobia, and Views labeled Islamophobic and moving the material to main article.  Only a few representative examples should be given.  As it is now, I think the number of entries overwhelms the reader and gives the impression that the article is trying to prove the existence of Islamophobia.  It’s a kind of “kitchen sink” approach that weighs down the article.
*The header does not accurately summarize article.  It gives even more weight to the critics than the main article, which is also unbalance (see WP:UNDUE).
*I think the material on the manifestations of Islamophobia should be added back into the definitions section.  As I’ve stated previously:
:: I’m not sure why the passage “Islamophobia manifests itself in a number of ways, ranging from discrimination and verbal threats to physical attacks on the persons and property of Muslims or people perceived as Muslims.  "Muslims in the European Union: Discrimination and Islamophobia", European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, 2006 " ” was removed.  The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary gives several definitions of the word”definition.”  The most appropriate in this context are “a statement expressing the essential nature of something; a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol;” and “the action or the power of describing, explaining, or making definite and clear.”  By none of these definitions should the passage be excluded from the section on definitions.
*Eliminate as many of the references from the main article text as possible.  They give the impression that the article is trying to prove a point.  The discussion can stand on its own (both the definitions and the criticisms).  The references should be mainly in the reference section.
*There seems to be a systematic bias in the article (see WP:BIAS and  WP:CSB).  It seems to deal mainly with the English Speaking World and does not take into account and views from the Muslim World, China, India, etc.
*The picture of Rushdie should go.  It’s the only picture included in the article and it represents a minority opinion.  It also doesn’t add anything new to the article.  Who cares what he looks like?
*The views expressed in the in the article are mainly from the western world and mainly from the United Kingdom and the United States.  Views from other parts of the world should be added to the article (see WP:BIAS). For instance, Al-Hayat, Al-Ahram, the Daily Star, the Gulf Times, and the OIC website are possible sources of information. Umer Al-Amerikee 03:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but don't try to remove Malik at the same time, or you'll be reverted. There is no justification for removing Malik. - Merzbow 17:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not removing Malik. His views have been repeated twice: once in the introductory paragraphs, once in the criticism section. Xiao t 17:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You removed, twice, an entire paragraph devoted to Malik. , . Are you familiar with the purpose of a WP:LEAD section? - Merzbow 18:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The entirety of that paragraph is repeated again two sections down. It is also worth noting that criticisms and reviews usually come at the end of an article, not at the beginning (see Iraq War and others). The repetition of a single man's view whose credibility in the subject is questionable, along with the peculiarly high position of the criticism section (just after the 'definition' of the term) suggests the article is making a point. Xiao t 18:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea what you're talking about, that paragraph is not repeated at all. The information in the lead is a short compression of that information, which is what a lead is supposed to do. - Merzbow 20:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is there to not understand? The third paragraph of the lead deals with denying the existence of islamophobia. Why does the lead not include mention of the UN addressing islamophobia, or facts on the phenomena covered by news? Antisemitism's lead does not include mention that some feel the charge of antisemitism is used to stifle criticism of Israel. And then after a quick offer of a definition for the word, the article goes onto the criticism section further elaborating that islamophobia does not exist. The rest of the article is essentially boring lists that most will not read anyway. The article is trying to push the argument that prejudice against Muslims is a myth. Xiao t 22:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's good to see you've progressed from attempting to remove the Malik material from the article while leaving the summary in the lead in contravention to WP:LEAD. Moving on, the Criticism section constitutes less than 1/3rd of the article text as far as I can tell, so your attempt to imply that the article is built around criticism holds no water. Oh, and BTW... have we met before? Couldn't be, could it? Naaaaaah... - Merzbow 22:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: This is the body of Bunglawala's response to Malik's article: 
Kenan Malik (“Islamophobia Myth,” Issue 107) surreptitiously isolates manifestations of Islamophobia to violent and overt hostility towards Muslims on our streets by racists and the police.
However, Malik’s conception of Islamophobia is at odds with virtually every source cited in his article. Ever since the term Islamophobia entered mainstream discourse following the Runnymede Trust’s report on Islamophobia in 1997, it is understood to entail a fear of and prejudice against Muslims. Such prejudice may manifest itself in ways other than physical attacks by racists or disproportionate arrests by the police, and the semantic edifice erected by Malik makes a mockery of victims of prejudice by pretending they have not been discriminated against.
In January 2005, the Crown Prosecution Service released figures which showed that of the 44 cases of religiously-aggravated crime between April 2003 and March 2004, in exactly 50% of the cases the religion or perceived religion of the victim was Islam. This is only the second year that the CPS has been collating these figures, but with the Muslim population making up only 3% of the British total, the statistics are already quite telling.
Malik also fails to recognise how and why the likes of the British National Party – for fear of being prosecuted under our incitement to race hate laws - have switched their strategy from targeting racial groupings to explicitly targeting British Muslims as a faith group. Malik’s Prospect piece and his C4 documentary ‘Are Muslims Hated?’ strangely omitted any mention of the northern riots of 2001 and the key role the BNP’s Muslim-baiting played in them. Gallingly, he then criticises the government’s proposals to close the loophole in our legislation and prohibit incitement to religious hatred. Does Mr Malik – who describes himself as an anti-racist - think that the BNP should be allowed to continue their incitement because it is merely anti-Muslim?
Malik has further not read the explanatory notes of the draft law to outlaw incitement of religious hatred, which states that “what must be stirred up is hatred of a group of persons defined by their religious beliefs and not hatred of the religion itself … criticism or expressions of antipathy or dislike of particular religions or their adherents will not be caught by the offence.” Malik may therefore continue to be hateful of religion as long as he does not incite hatred of followers of religion, which is hardly a meritorious act worth protection.
Islamophobia is not confined to the far right. It is the progressive realisation that racism may manifest itself in ways other than physical attacks that racial discrimination in the field of employment and in the delivery of services was outlawed in the Race Relations Act 1976. Similarly, Islamophobia may be manifested by denying an individual employment based on their belief in Islam, and such conduct was only recently outlawed in the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003. There is no such “myth” in this regard, as demonstrated for example by the survey conducted by BBC Radio 5 Live in July 2004. The BBC sent fictitious applications for jobs using applicants with the same qualifications and work experience, but different names. The investigation found that a quarter of the applications by the candidates with traditionally English sounding names were successful in securing an interview, compared with 13% for the applicants with Black African names and only 9% of applicants with Muslim names.
Some writers in the mainstream media have been no less culpable in fomenting this prejudice against Muslims and contributing to their emergence as the ‘folk devils’ of popular and media imagination. In July 2004, the Sunday Telegraph published a series of four breathtakingly anti-Muslim pieces by Will Cummins in which he compared Muslims with dogs and argued why ‘Muslims are a threat to our way of life’ (Sunday Telegraph, 25 July 2004). It is simply unthinkable that an editor of a national newspaper would still be in his job if he had allowed a similar barrage of hate to be directed at Afro-Caribbean’s or Jews.
It can appear, as Kenan Malik contends that 'Islamophobia is a myth', but only if you deliberately choose to look the other way.
His largest point was that Malik only counted "overt and violent hostility" and ignored other forms of prejudice. That point is entirely missing here. There is no mention of that argument. Such a shallow representation of his views have been introduced here that it seems his response to Kenan Malik was frivilous and devoid of real rationale. It was written in poor english and barely touched the content of Bunglawala's statement.  Malik's views were not so carelessly reproduced here. Every major arguement of his was represented here. Xiao t 20:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How does the paragraph as you wrote it address Malik's arguments in the paragraph above it? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I see it? Malik's view (according to his article) is that there was no rise in the number of violent acts (spitting and shoving Muslims don't count, although stabbing to death would), and therefore islamophobia doesn't really exist. Everything else Malik writes rides on the notion that claims of islamophobia were invented to use as some tool. Bunglawala's primary argument is that prejudice cannot just be measured by the number of overt acts of violence. He cites that BBC study that found people with Muslim names would be less likely to secure job interviews, and newspaper articles that compared Muslims to dogs. Anyway, it's not for me to judge the effectiveness of Bunglawala's rationale. He issued a response on behalf of Britain's largest Muslim organization, and that response should be adequately covered here in terms of what it actually says. That's all I did. I changed the pre-existing paragraph because it poorly covered Bunglawala's response, it ignored the very point he most emphasized, and was generally written in poor english. Xiao t 21:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The second paragraph is making the observation that Malik doesn't account for non-violent forms of prejudice in evaluating whether islamophobia as a phenomena exists. That observation rebuts Malik's "myth" and "exaggeration" argument. Bunglawala contests how Malik percieves what "islamophobia" means even according to his own sources, in that most sources describes islamophobia as a form of prejudice, and yet Malik suggests the only indicators for it are violent acts and police actions. Bunglawala elaborates that there are also non-violent forms of prejudice which need to be considered. That's where the BBC study becomes a relevant example. That applicants with Muslim names are many times less likely to secure a job interview in Britain than one with a Christian name suggests a terrible bias that isolates and separates Muslims from the mainstream. This addresses "islamophobia is a myth". This addresses "Muslims are more vulnerable to social exclusion and attacks than other groups is exaggerated". Xiao t 23:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rejoinder to Criticism

message: His main expertise is banking, and only writes opinion editorials for The Times, quoting from his blog doesn't mean it has greater credibility than anyone else Bleh999 06:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly wrong, or the lead from Oliver Kamm wouldn't consist of this - "Oliver Kamm (born 1963) is a British newspaper columnist, author and blogger. He writes opinion pieces for The Times. His book Anti-Totalitarianism: The Left-wing Case for a Neoconservative Foreign Policy published by the Social Affairs Unit in 2005 advocates interventionism in foreign policy.[1]" - Merzbow 07:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, he wrote one book which has no relation to this subject, far from 'his area of expertise' as you falsely claimed.  Why don't you quote from his book instead of an opinion in a blog? Bleh999 07:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You want to add a better quote, do so. But what's there is allowed by policy, so don't remove it. He's notable for being a political commentator, not a banker. - Merzbow 08:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oliver Kamm

message: This is now referenced and discussed in two separate sections in the main text. The shorter discussion in the "alleged acts" section should now be removed. - Merzbow 01:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really care which section it's in, Merzbow, so feel free to do as you see fit. I'm going to take this off my watchlist for a while, because I don't think it has any chance of becoming well-written. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ABC News post-9/11 poll 

message: The opening paragraph already states the position of critics of the term. I see no reason why Kenan Malik's view should be elaborated again in the third paragraph. Given responses to him and the views of those who believe islamophobia isn't a myth aren't also touched, it is wrong to give him two appearances in the article. The article has many sections dealing with many issues. Also, Kofi Annan is not a declared "proponent" of islamophobia. Nor is the EU or other bodies which discusses the problem. Saying that Islamophobia is only defined as so-and-so by its proponents is false. Xiao t 01:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, please read WP:LEAD, which explicitly states that the lead cannot discuss anything that's not also in the article. - Merzbow 01:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please read WP:LEAD's first few paragraphs. In particular, note the word "overview". The sentence stating the views of the opponents of the term gives a sufficiently strong overview of what critics think. A three paragraph lead should not feature what critics think in the first and the third. Both Kenan Malik's and Salman Rushdie's view are overly analyzed in the lead, making it less of an overview and more of a thorough investigation into their beliefs. This is not what the Lead is for. The lead needs to also generally cover the rest of the content of the article, which it doesn't. The article has 6 noteworthy sections, only the definitions and criticisms are blessed with representation in the lead. 02:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead, "Proponents" and other issues

message: The problem with the passage “British writer and academic Kenan Malik has called the concept a "myth,"” is that it does not provide enough context.  What the article states that Islamophobia is a “myth” in a very narrow context, that of  the United Kingdom in 2005, where a new law outlawing religious hatred was being proposed.  In fact, Malik never says that Islamophobia is a ‘myth” only that it is not as big a problem as many in the UK thought it was at that time.  Here is a sample “In reality, discrimination against Muslims is not as great as is often claimed.”  If he thinks it’s a “myth” why doesn’t he say that discrimination against Muslims doesn’t exist? Here’s another sample, “I used to organise patrols on east London estates to protect Asian families from racist attacks.”  If he thinks there was no Islamophobia, why was he organizing patrols against it?  Here’s still another quote “There are still racist attacks.”  That doesn’t make it sound as if he thinks it’s a “myth” either.
Umer Al-Amerikee 02:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The term is only used in the title (probably for effect).  The quote is clearly out of context when one reads the article.Umer Al-Amerikee 17:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Myth

message: I’d like to point out that the some material in question was removed previously from the definitions section because and editor thought it was not a definition, so I decided to add it in its own section .  In any event, the ABC News material was added as I indicated in the talk section on June 8th.  No one has responded.  In any event, I'm not sure why adding a section requires consensus when nothing else seems to.Umer Al-Amerikee 02:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Manifestations

message: editors who keep reinserting Atkinson's comments refuse to explain how specifically he is talking about Islamophobia - he mentions the word not once and none of his comments are in that context. furthermore, he's a comedian. secondly, the criticism section comes after the bulk of the discussion. there is a concerted attempt to get as much criticism mentioned as prominently as possible - the lead mentions the exact same critique three times, and editors keep pushing up the section re: criticism - which itself is pretty bloated. if we can't reach an agreement, it looks like it's on to mediation. oh, and for a term that is "widely recognized and used" according to the Encyclopedia of Race and Ethnic studies (p. 218, Routledge 2003) - using such weasely qualifications in the first sentence are really quite inappropriate. ITAQALLAH 13:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "word" doesnt have to mentioned. Islamophobia supporters silence the criticism of Islam (religion). Atkinson is talking about this same issue. Its relevant. Please insert it back. It doesnt matter if he's a comedian, not everything he says in his life will be about comedy. This has been explained pretty well by someone else, please go back and read the stuff.  --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Islamophobia supporters silence the criticism of Islam" -- that's a POV, not objective fact. we have no indication that Atkinson is talking about Islamophobia specifically. ITAQALLAH 14:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It's entirely appropriate that the concept is first introduced, then criticized, then applied in accordance with the way its proponents define it. I don't understand the basis of Itaqallah's objections. Beit Or 14:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: please refer to what i wrote above. its "proponents" are the majority, as the term is "widely recognized and used". criticism, according to the ERE, derives from right-wing commentators. the concept and how/where it has been applied are mentioned first, then criticism of both these aspects comes afterwards. ITAQALLAH 14:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The ideas that the proponents are the majority and the criticism derives from "right-wing commentators" are not supported by the available range of sources. The majority of whom? And is Salman Rushdie, an impeccable leftie, a "right-wing commentator"? Beit Or 20:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  Describing everyone who comprehends the meaning of the word "islamophobia" as its proponent is POV and OR. Is Kofi Annan a proponent of islamophobia since he used the word? Atkinson was not speaking on islamophobia. To draw a connection to his comments on a law banning religious incitement, and islamophobia specifically is OR too. Add his comments to Criticism of Religion instead. And the lead is giving undue weight to the view of critics. An overview of the critics' view is featured in the very first paragraph, and the entirety of the third elaborates the view of two of them.This in a three paragraph lead?  Even the definition gives deference to the critics. "Proponents". How does everyone else define it? There are 6 sections of content in the article, why does criticism take up so much of the lead? Xiao t 14:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The critics define "Islamophobia" as a stick that is used to bash criticism of Islam. I hope this answers your question. Beit Or 20:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atkinson, weasel-wording, and undue weight 

message: The following passage makes no sense "Islamophobia is a controversial term that refers to what its proponents see as prejudice or discrimination against Islam or Muslims."  It makes it sound as if there is a group of people out there that are in favor of being afraid of Islam who want to use the term "Islamophobia" to mean "prejudice or discrimination against Islam or Muslims" when in fact the individuals and groups who support using this definition are opponents of Islamophobia.Umer Al-Amerikee 16:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While it might be poor grammar of the phrase, but the test speaks not about "proponents of Islamophobia" as you think, but about "proponents of the term". `'юзырь:mikka 02:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proponents of Islamophobia

message: The article needs some historical perspective beyond what has already been included.  As indicated in the first section after the lead section "Hostility towards Islam and Muslims has been a feature of European societies since the eighth century of the Common Era. It has taken different forms, however, at different times and has fulfilled a variety of functions. For example, the hostility in Spain in the fifteenth century was not the same as the hostility that had been expressed and mobilised [ sic] in the Crusades. Nor was the hostility during the time of the Ottoman Empire or that which was prevalent throughout the age of empires and colonialism. It may be more apt to speak of 'Islamophobias' rather than of a single phenomenon. Each version of Islamophobia has its own features as well as similarities with, and borrowings from, other versions."  A section on the history of Islamophobia should be added similar to the one in the article on Antisemitism.Umer Al-Amerikee 16:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you are suggesting is doing Original research based on anachronism. It is a dangerous idea to apply neologisms to old times. The article is about a specific modern political buzzword. For example when Mongols razed a town which failed to promptly give up, we do not call this "ethnic cleansing, do we? `'юзырь:mikka 02:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical Perspective

message: The majority of people use(and search for) islamophobia as per its meaning. This article is about "the controversial term" and not the phenomena that defines it. Therefore it is appropriate for a the "for..." tag to be on top pointing those interested in a general article on persecution against Muslims to find it. Is there any reason to object? Xiao t 20:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, because "for" tags do not belong at the top of articles except in the case of simple disambiguation. - Merzbow 20:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This could be a case of disambiguation depending on what the article is suppose to be about.  For some editors it seems to be about predjudice against and persecution of Muslims.  For others, it seems to be mainly about the word "Islamophobia" and the use of the label to stiffle criticism.  It seems as if it could/should be about either one or both but if it is about that later disambiguation is necessary but if it is about the former (or both) why is there even an article called Persecution of Muslims?Umer Al-Amerikee 17:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Top links are for disambiguation. Rush and Rush are articles that must be disambiguated. Islamophobia and Persecution of Muslims aren't. - Merzbow 17:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe so.  I did notice in WP:D that there are exceptions to this rule and that common sense should always be used.  In any event, you didn't really address my main point.  There seems to be some overlap between the articles as well as confusion over what each one is about.  How will the average reader know they have the article they are looking for?Umer Al-Amerikee 02:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pointer to [[Persecution of Muslims]]

message: Please add the followng (or comparable) text at the begining of the section Islamophobia#Incidents on aircraft:
: Some incidents with Muslim passengers on aircraft gave rise to the expression "Flying while Muslim".
Thank you, Mukadderat 00:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In an article that draws a lot of attention, like this one, you will need to provide a good reliable source that discusses the term and its use. This helps to keep the viewpoint neutral. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't quite understand your objection. There is a wikipedia article with this title. It is not deleted. It is not even nominated for deletion. It has numerous references, because the topic is of big notice. Finally certainly it is directly relevant to the section I am suggesting. Mukadderat 16:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I have to agree with Mukadderat. Why aren't the sources in the article sufficient?--Chaser - T 19:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I can't speak for Carl, I think that he meant that if there is a reliable source for this particular sentence, a <ref> tag should be appended to it indicating that. It looks like there are multiple options for sources in the Flying while Muslim article. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, done. Thanks, MZM.--Chaser - T 20:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Mukadderat 18:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Flying while Muslim