Talk:Islamophobia/Archive 8

message: Entertaining edit war, but please sort it out on the talk page. Protected at the request of . - FrancisTyers 10:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I requested that the article be protected, as we're clearly not getting anywhere with this lame edit war. And yes, m:The Wrong Version was protected. So, I suggest we should pause here and decide how to proceed. We could hold a straw poll, or maybe someone else has an idea. Thoughts? jacoplane 11:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd rather want to know, what are your specific concerns regarding my version of the lead section? -- Karl Meier 11:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok first of, I have objections about the removal of Fortuyn as I outlined above. Secondly, I feel that it is inappropriate the discuss criticism of the concept in the introduction. The criticism belongs in the section devoted to it. Actually I think both versions are not appropriate since the version Raphael1 and others have been reverting to contains weasel words like "Some consider...". jacoplane 11:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As mentioned above, I support that Fortuyn should be readded with the source that you just provided. Regarding the criticism, I think it should be mentioned in the lead section to make it as neutral as possible and because the concept has indeed recieved alot criticism. As I understand it, the lead section should be a short summary of the whole article, and the criticism is of course a very important part of this article. Maybe it shouldn't be a direct quote though. -- Karl Meier 11:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that including something like "A number of writers, journalists, and intellectuals say it confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers." is acceptable. jacoplane 11:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree to that. -- Karl Meier 11:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  The current definition (after the weasel words) "fear of Islam, which allegedly leads to hostility toward or prejudice against Muslims" is wrong, because this fear is particularly called Islamophobia, if it leads to hostility. There are many ways to deal with fear. One way would be to examine the reasons for ones fear to find out whether and where it is justified. The islamophobic way is to blindly give in to ones fear and spread sweeping hostility. Raphael1 11:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you would say the definition should be something like "a fear of Islam that leads to hostility or prejudice against Muslims". This definition does not imply that everyone who has a fear of Islam is Islamophobic, only those who let that fear lead to hostility or prejudice. Is that correct? jacoplane 11:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Raphael1 11:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That definition is wrong... not every "fear of Islam" leads to hostility... or even prejudice. Netscott 11:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, that definition does not imply that every fear of Islam leads to hostility. Only that when fear leads to hostility or prejudice, one can speak of Islamophobia. jacoplane 11:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well that's the whole point Jacoplane, if a person goes by the history of the term "Islamophobia" as spelled out later in the article it is composed of "Islam" and "phobia". Have you looked up -phobia? There's no mention of hostility there. This definition thereby constitues a contradiction in terms. Netscott 11:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  However, that is how the terms is being used in the mainstream press. And it has also been criticised for it, something that is explained at some length in the article. jacoplane 11:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  While the term may be used that way in the press I'm inclined to say that this is due to a lack of understanding of the terminology of the word. WikiPedia shouldn't be spreading an erroneous use of terminology by blanket definition but should be clear who are the parties spreading this erroneous usage. Have you seen this article? Netscott 11:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In my opinion that is a valid criticism that should be included in the article. Wikipedia should document usage of the word as it is done by others. If that usage is criticised, we will document that as well. There are a lot of words that don't really make literal sense. It is arguable that since Arabic is a semitic language, the terminology anti-semitism doesn't really make sense either. However, it is used to describe violence and prejudice against Jews, so that is how the Wikipedia article defines it. jacoplane 11:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jacoplane, I agree about the term "anti-semitism" but that was an error that was committed long ago while the use of that term was still being defined and what's done is done... "Islamophobia" is currently being defined and there's no reason that the same type of mistake need occur twice. In the intro the wording should say "Islamophobia as being defined by (two or more of the parties doing the defining) is etc. etc." so that responsibility for the definition is properly assigned. Netscott 12:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think there is a mistake in the anti-semitism article, please correct it there. IMHO it's a mistake, if wikipedia newly defines words by literal translations. Wikipedia should define words according to their general usage and not by literal translations. Raphael1 13:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Raphael1 your statement couldn't be more wrong if it tried. WikiPedia SHOULD NOT be defining words. Where have you been? That's the whole point of talk for the last week or so. For WikiPedia to define words is counter to WP:NOR rules against Original Research. Netscott 18:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Netscott, Raphael1 was not saying we should just make up some random definition, but that the definition we include should reflect how the term is used in "general usage", i.e. the mainstream media. At least, that is how I read his comments. Anyway, try to stay calm and civil. jacoplane 18:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A more general comment arising from Raphael1's frequent references to the antisemitism article: it doesn't matter if that article states something. Most of the objections to your edits I've seen here are stated independently from other Wikipedia articles, and as such can and should be responded to as such. You appear to be aiming for some exact correspondence, which is a goal in the abstract I'm not sure I have a problem with (though, I've not thought about it much either, and there is the *-phobia vs anti-* asymmetry that bothers me some); however, this doesn't render items and claims in this article acceptable according to Wikipedia guidelines when they otherwise wouldn't be. If you feel that antisemitism operates on looser standards than some here would like to impose, feel free to edit that article. That's not, though, an argument for allowing such laxness here. As it is, I don't remember a single worthwhile comment from you in which you mention that article. Nysin 18:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the one who brought up the anti-semitism article. I don't really see how your comment is helping this discussion. jacoplane 18:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "If you remove them, please don't forget to remove all "synagoge burning" and "swastika paintings on jewish graves" from the anti-semitism article too." was most proximately what I had in mind, actually - I don't disagree with the point you're making about antisemitism's being inaccurate too in the way that many are arguing Islamophobia is. Search for 'semitism' or such though, and one will notice most of them are from Raphael1, and many try to essentially argue that "Article X says Y, so article Z must act similarly." Granted, it was defensibly pointlessly argumentative, but given that Raphael1 is still doing it, and has for the last week and a half at least, I think it's worth commenting on. Nysin 22:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anti-semitism and Islamophobia are indeed too similar not to compare them at one point. Both are racisms against a religion. There have been suggestions to use anti-islamism instead, but islamism is already a very loaded difficult to define word, and anti-islamism could easily be used conducively. Raphael1 23:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: There shouldn't be criticism of the term in the lead, or if there is, it shouldn't take the form of a quotation. The external links section is too big. What the hell is with the alleged examples, drop it, find real examples. Why does the criticism section have to be a long list of quotes by talking heads? Those are my gut reactions, if both sides wish I'll do a more thorough job, but otherwise I'll let you guys get on with it. :) - FrancisTyers 11:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people say that islamophobia is a misnomer, that it does not exist, so, any reference to it can, to be NPOV, only an allegation. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then call it something like "People who have been described as Islamophobic". Alleged smacks of biased wording. - FrancisTyers 11:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There have been many variations on that theme throughout the history of the article, but, if you want to change it to that I would have no objections. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  FrancisTyers, I have been trying to make that point myself. Not only should the wording your suggesting be adopted but the actual people who've done such characterizations should be specified in the article. For this article to blanket refer to "Possible/Alleged examples of Islamophobia" truly reaks of original research POV. Netscott 11:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Additionally the fact that the term "Islamophobia" is a neologism should be the first part of the article. Netscott 11:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The first four words of either version read "Islamophobia is a neologism" - what are to trying to say ? --Irishpunktom\talk 11:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My comments do not specifically refer to these two versions.... but several versions that have come and gone. The intro wording should reflect what bodies are defining the term as well... Netscott 11:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with the wrong version

message: Can everyone agree that the sentence "Some consider these feelings to be the product of ignorance, irrationality, or mere prejudice; others claim that they are wholly or partly justified. The term is used variously and the existence of the phenomenon is disputed." is full of weasel words and is therefore not acceptable for use in the article. I propose that "A number of writers, journalists, and intellectuals say it confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers." and "The word is a neologism that has yet to have one clear and explicit definition." is enough critical information for the introduction. We might consider using the definition from the Oxford Dictionary of English.  jacoplane 13:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support your weasel word reduction, but I don't prefer the Oxford definition, since it completely leaves out the literal translation (fear). Raphael1 13:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you cite a definition you do prefer? Nysin 14:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the definition, we agreed to here. Raphael1 14:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I presume you're referring to "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". I have one caveat with this: can you identify one specific case of "institutionalized, violent persecution"? The only institutionalized incident that has been in the article (which was not violent) is the French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools, which I think was clearly more about protecting the concept of Laïcité than it was about targetting muslims. The fact that the Turkish Justice and Development Party (Turkey) implemented similar laws would support this. jacoplane 14:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is quite possible, that some of these gory pictures show institutionalized, violent persecution based on Islamophobia. Raphael1 18:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you support that whilst abiding by WP:NOR using WP:R? Nysin 18:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You want me to show a link to corporate media preferably FOX news, which states that anyone involved in the Iraq war is islamophobic? You've gotta be kidding! Raphael1 18:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Raphael1, you know that some pictures in a web gallery do not amount to a reliable source. Wikipedia:Reliable sources & Wikipedia:Verifiability are pretty clear, and if you don't feel that there are sources for something you wish to claim in the article (and obviously FOX news is not the best source out there) then it cannot be included in the article. If you are unwilling to accept Wikipedia policies then there is not much point in having this discussion. jacoplane 18:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since 76 percent of all US corporate media news on Iraq come from current or former government or military officials, who obviously have an agenda, I wouldn't call them Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Raphael1 19:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well that leaves 24 percent that is "not bad", so find something from there. Maybe something from Seymour Hersh, The Guardian, or Al Jazeera. Anything will do really, but without any source we cannot include something in the article. jacoplane 19:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Connecting the Irak war to Islamophobia is pretty much what the "enemy" is saying to get support in the Muslim world, so I guess not even the 24% "better news" will say that. I hope, that not even the "Muslim world" really thinks, that Bush is leading another Crusade (although he said it once). Anyway, I'm 100% sure, that at least some soldiers in Irak are islamophobic. Raphael1 22:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Does prisoner abuse count as "institutionalized, violent persecution"?  What about the 1,200 Arab and Muslim immigrants detained in the weeks after 9/11?  Raphael1 16:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  These sources seem credible to me. Thank you for making the effort to find them. jacoplane 16:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel word sentence

message: Please remove the Salman Rushdie quote from the intro. We don't necessarily need a quote from an possiblyalleged islamophobic person on the article about Islamophobia. Raphael1 23:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As was mentioned above, the wrong version got protected. I'm afraid the page will only be unprotected once we reach some kind of consensus (on the whole article) on this talk page. jacoplane 23:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A good solution to this dispute is just to move all the quotes to wikiquote. Wikipedia is not a collection of quotes. This is an article about Islamophobia, not a collection of quotations appertaining to it. savidan(talk) (e@) 20:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As mentioned above, I would accept Jacoplane's compromise re the criticism of the concept in the intro section. Also, Raphael1, we do necessarily have to include criticism from noteable writers such as Salman Rushdie, and it doesn't matter if you think he's "islamophobic" and should be censored on this article.  -- Karl Meier 21:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's ok if you put salman rushdie on the page, but please don't put him in the intro. I'd suggest the criticism section. Raphael1 23:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the reasons mentioned above, the criticism that has been made against the concept should also be mentioned in the intro section. Not as a direct quote though, but the way Jacoplane suggested. -- Karl Meier 08:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Islamophobia is probably the most disputed word/concept in the english language at the moment. This should be stated in the intro, with the arguments about it in the critisism section. Preferably it should be a sourced quote.Hypnosadist 16:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salman Rushdie 

message: I strongly object to the use of "scare quotes" in the "opening sentece". I find this addition to be "POV" and "un-wiki". It could set a "precedent" which could cause "ethically-challenged" "users" to "add" such quotes to other "articles" just to prove a "point." savidan(talk) (e@) 20:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scare quotes 

message: I was going to archive this talk page again. I was thinking of archiving everything up to the beginning of April. Any objections? jacoplane 18:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, really everything up to the page protection section. jacoplane 18:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None here. Nysin 18:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: I think we should look hard at some of the sources being used in this article (both pro & con), as I think a number of them seem to not follow the guidelines found on RS#Evaluating secondary sources. For example,  and  both have an agenda which, according to Wikipolicies means "Groups like these may be used as primary sources only i.e. as sources about themselves, and even then with caution and sparingly". The CAIR reference is being used for their view on the subject, which I think is acceptable, since it is not being presented as a absolute fact. The militant islam monitor is being used as a secondary source unrelated to itself which is not acceptable. This article has many many more examples though, and I think it would be wise to examine all references in more detail. jacoplane 18:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Not only does the (quite comical, but sort of unproductive) editing of the neutrality warning suggest that, perhaps, it should be left at a broader state (because different editors disagree about what it should warn about - the point of the warning appears to be to alert readers and other potential editors to this, and as such should generally err towards unions rather than intersections), but several of the examples are still dubious at best, to pick my pet issue. Redefining the ostensible points of contention to edit that away seems dishonest. Nysin 21:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality warning 

message: I removed "contrary to..." because it constitutes an argument about whether "criticism of the concept" should be here (and, I note, one in which some editors are engaging in the opposite argument re other articles).  What remains is enough to identify the reason for the dispute.Timothy Usher 12:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tag edit

message: Why are there three banners? The first one sums it up just fine. Neutrality is disputed, factual accuracy is disputed. The second banner is saying the same as the first, but it's being more specific. Is it necessary? The third banner is disputing the factual accuracy, again with a more accurate statement. It's not necessary. Factual accuracy is factual accuracy. Joffeloff 10:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I inserted the secondary banners but now I believe that this wasn't necessary on my part. The template  in fact covers everything. Netscott 11:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banners 

message: The Netherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy recently published a number of reports that have been presented to the Dutch minister of foreign affairs, Ben Bot. The report criticised a number of Dutch politicians on their stance towards Islam. The report has since been criticised by a number of Dutch policians and academics. Background stories: , , . jaco♫plane 21:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Netherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy report 

message: To all editors! If you delete reference (especially ones with name attribute) think twice and check for possible lost of reference. I'm tired of cleaning up after you. -- tasc talkdeeds 08:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Why anyone reverts it should be obvious, it's amazingly POV. --CrayZ 19:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry CrayZ, but looking at your contributions, such as this one, makes it difficult for me to take anything you say seriously. jaco♫plane 21:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obvious POV 

message: There is no need for the Citation, at least for the reasons given.  The image is of a BNP poster, which says "make may 4 a referendum on Islam" - How is that not a campaign against the Religion of Islam? - For further references and images, etc, go the BNP website, but I think these two are fine. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny enough on this particular point I tend to agree with Irishpunktom, particularly considering that BNP is already referenced in the article. Netscott 17:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I've learned never to be surprised by agreement.  As you say, the photo speaks for itself.Timothy Usher 22:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The only problem is to put it in proper section! -- tasc talkdeeds 11:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding this edit, I have acted on it, as I have previously made my position pretty clear on the talk page. Irishpunktom has merely reverted without offering any kind of explanation. I stand by my opinion that the current usage is not in compliance with the fair use rules that state that fair use images can only be used for critical commentary (as they would be in the context of where the BNP is discussed) and not merely for decorative purposes. Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy is very clear on this. jaco♫plane 10:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Rational for the inclusion of Poster is included, where it should be, on the talk page of the image. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: BNP

message: Why is this line: "According to Human Rights Watch and the Council on American-Islamic Relations there has been a recent increase in Islamophobic events and hate crimes against Muslims[1] and Islamic organizations.[2]" included when neither of the ref links actually makes reference to islamophobia? Netscott 09:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In view of the fact that my concerns about the original research nature of this text have gone unanswered, I'm removing it for now. Netscott 10:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both references mention hate crimes against Muslims. I've changed the text accordingly. Raphael1 12:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Research

message: Irishpunktom, where is the reference that allege that the images that you insist on adding, is somehow "islamophobic" or in any way connected to the concept? Please quote from these sources. If you don't have such a source, it is original research to include them as an example of "islamophobia". Another thing is (as mentioned by several editors above) that, they should be at the "References in connection to Islamophobia" section, which is the place in the article, where the alleged examples of "islamophobia" is. -- Karl Meier 08:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a section for alleged examples of "islamophobia", and I suggest that you use it for all your referenced discoveries. You shouldn't pollute the whole article though, with allegations of "islamophobia" from someone like Inayat Bunglawala from the Muslim Council of Britain. Anyway, I believe the reference is good enough to include one of the images in the "References in connection to Islamophobia" section. One should be enough, as there is no reason that we waste our readers time, repeating this allegation again and again. -- Karl Meier 08:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your problem with Inayat Bunglawala from the Muslim Council of Britain? Raphael1 09:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Karl, the point is ridiculous! Because the BNP have been mentioned once in the article they should not be mentioned again? - No. It is proper to include an image in the opening paragraph, and that one is a good example of the alleged Phenomenon.--Irishpunktom\talk 09:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Raphael: He's hardly a neutral source. -- Karl Meier 09:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Because he's Muslim? Are non-Muslims neutral sources for the Islamophobia article? Is Salman Rushdie? Raphael1 09:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Irishpunktom: The introsection i supposed to be balanced. On Wikipedia it's called NPOV. -- Karl Meier 09:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The intro section has a NPOV - i am not changing the tezt. --Irishpunktom\talk 09:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The intro was NPOV until you changed it, and added allegations from your highly biased sources. -- Karl Meier 09:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What, exactly, are you talking abut? Salman Rushdie is a very biased source, but his name is there, in the opening paragraph so as to serve to NPOV the article. --Irishpunktom\talk 09:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the voices in support of the concept and voices that critizise the concept is there, and they where quite balanced towards each other, until you started your "add BNP images everywhere" crusade. The  images should be where they belong, which is in the "References in connection to Islamophobia". -- Karl Meier 10:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not everywhere - There are two Karl, just two. one at the beginning, and one in the lower section. This is not everywhere. Do you propose removing biased sources, such as salmon Rushdie? --Irishpunktom\talk 10:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You need to understand that this articles topic is "islamophobia", and not BNP. Please end your campaign, and stop posting their material all over the article. -- Karl Meier 11:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article is about Islamophobia, and there are two BNP images included therin to illistrate the point. Two, not "everywhere", two. Two small images. These images are not "all over the article", there is one at the top, and one in a lower section. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you believe, that one image in the appropiate section is not enough to illustrate your point about BNP? -- Karl Meier 11:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: And please explain, why did you revert the changes to the "external links" section, and the decreasing of the font-size? -- Karl Meier 11:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Karl, if you have a better image to add, go ahead and add it, but what you are doing is blanking a small image from the opening paragraph - Which is where an image should be - and replacing it with nothing. you have also accused me of some form of Campaign to publicise the BNP - Your assertions are ridiculous - Do you have a better image, if so, bring it forth and we can debate its merits, stop removing images sourced and cited and used. In relation to the other changes - if you want to make them, please discuss here why you think they should be made --Irishpunktom\talk 11:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh, this is still going on? The image at the top is not being used for any critical analysis of the BNP, it is being used for decorative purposes only, and as such violates Wikipedia's Fair use policy. I'm not going to spell this out again. jaco♫plane 11:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  the image at the top is being used, per its fair use rational, as a Visual descriptor of the contested Phenomenon of Islamophobia.  Thats its' rational, thats what it is doing. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Irishpunktom doesn't seems to have a very good understanding of what is required for "fair use" to apply. I even noticed that some fair use images has just been removed from his userpage. -- Karl Meier 12:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Another thing is that he continue to refuse to explain his revert of the changes to external links, and his reversion of the reduced font-size in the "references" section, which is accepted standard in Wikipedia. Overall, I believe his edits looks increasingly disruptive. -- Karl Meier 12:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: If the best that this can be supported as is "anti-Muslim feelings", it cannot stay in an article about Islamophobia. Nysin 15:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BNP reference 

message: The reference to prisoner abuse in Guantanamo Bay does not invoke the term Islamophobia. I'm not quite sure what it is, other than a list of incidents of something. The reference for prisoner abuse in Britain does not appear to be a reliable NPOV source to me, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding how that works. Can someone take a look at that page, and suggest a course of action for that reference? Bibigon 00:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prisoner Abuse refs 

message: I removed him from the "Characterizations" section because so far I haven't seens any evidence, that his comments in the mentioned article should be a notable definition of "islamophobia". Raphael reverted me , so now I would like to ask Raphael, if he can make it clear why this definition, that he insist on mentioning, is notable enough to be mentioned in that section. -- Karl Meier 14:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He is the BBC's Islamic affairs Analyst, thus, his Characterization is both notable and verifiable, and wirthy of inclusion. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you really believe that one short sentence in an article about another subject should be a notable definition of "islamophobia" just because he is BBC's Islamic affairs Analyst? I don't find that very convincing. Do you have some useful sources that use or mention his definition islamophobia? -- Karl Meier 22:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Roger Hardy