Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:42, 27 July 2006

This article survived two votes for deletion. An archived record of these debates can be found here and here.

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Efforts combatting Islamophobia section

Despite the fact that I have edited on this section I'm wondering if it doesn't really fit into the article? The article is about the terminology and concept of Islamophobia and as such it strikes me as too presumptive for the article to in fact be using such a neologistic term (outside of quotes where the term has been used by others). Rather than editing out this section for these reasons what are others' views about retitling the section something to the effect of: "Examples of usage of the term islamophobia"? Netscott 10:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Err, no, that would be odd. The examples are examples of Goverments and orgaanisations fighting, or combating what they have described as islamophobia, and that is te reason for its inclusion. --Irishpunktom\ 11:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Following the example set by the Islamofascism article I've change the section title to be, Examples of use in public discourse. Netscott 12:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Examples of its use in public discourse would include almost the entire article!!! - That section deals specifically with "Efforts to combat(or fight) Islamophobia" --Irishpunktom\ 13:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. If you look at the Homophobia article, for example, there is not anything that talks about efforts to combat it. However, there is the article LGBT social movements which documents efforts at improving civil rights for the LGBT community. There is also Homosexuality laws of the world & Category:Gay rights by country which describes the treatment of the community in different country. Of course, these are not documenting efforts to combat the neologism 'Homophobia', rather they focus on the more verifiable information on actual laws. Perhaps a better approach in this case would be to focus on the civil rights of Muslims around the world. As far as I can tell no such article exists as of yet. In the current situation, claiming that when the Prime minister of the Netherlands states one thing in a speech somewhere, and concluding that he is dedicated to "combatting islamophobia" seems like a bit of a stretch to me. jaco♫plane 14:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Explain how "Examples of use in public discourse" does not apply to every single cited reference in this article~? Also, if some additions to that section are debatable, explain why please? --Irishpunktom\ 15:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you not read User:Jacoplane's comment above? Also as far as the specificity of combatting the wording just under the section title covers this. Netscott 15:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, now, answer the question, Explain how "Examples of use in public discourse" does not apply to every single cited reference in this article~?--Irishpunktom\ 15:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

What may be needed is a dab and two articles... one that discusses the terminology of "islamophobia" and another that discusses the concept that stems from the term. From having edited on this article for awhile now this strikes me as one of its recurring points of contention. Netscott 15:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that having two articles is a good idea. Firstly, because normally an article (or group of them) should use single definition and be good basis for discussion across WP. In my opinion existing Examples of use in public discourse section is a way too detailed. In characterization sub-section opinion of questionable importance are being discussed. We possibly cannot and shall not include each and every article mentioning issue. Secondly, because of a disputed nature of the article. We don't have to multiply entities w/o need. -- tasc _deeds 16:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Jacoplane that material on civil rights of Muslims would be worthwhile, though probably not in this article. Nysin 18:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• As far as the section title's application to every reference, this is a good point that you make and in fact I'm inclined to have this section title encompass the References to section as well. Netscott 15:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• What about the earlier cited references. And are not the Critics of the term an "Example of use in public discourse"? --Irishpunktom\ 15:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

When it comes to criticism or support of the term islamophobia we're talking about Meta discussions. The term isn't actually being used but is being discussed. Do you see the difference? Netscott 15:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course its being discussed!! The very concept is discussed in those sections! --Irishpunktom\ 15:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you actually visit the meta article? Netscott 15:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and you are still wrong. How can a section which disputes the application of a word not be discussing the word?!--Irishpunktom\ 15:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry let me be a bit more precise. Please see Meta- and know that what I'm talking about in terms of the criticism/support discussions surrounding islamophobia is indeed meta-islamophobia discussions. Netscott 15:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Interesting that you should mention WP:POINT in one of your editorial comments when you're the one who's making a rather asinine edit that does a blanket encompassing of everything being public discourse despite my explanation of the difference in the section title relative to the concept of meta-. By making this new all encompassing section title it is you yourself who's demonstrating WP:POINT behavior. Netscott 15:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• The heading refers to its use in Pblic discourse, this is a sideshow and irelevent, as all the cited references relate to its use in Public discourse--Irishpunktom\ 15:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The more I think about this proposed edit, the more I like it. Specifically because of the neologistic nature of this term, a section towards efforts to combat it strikes me as strange and presumptive. With a neologism, it is useful to demonstrate exactly how the term can be used. There's another consideration here for me, which may be somewhat beyond the scope of this article, but in general, I think if other neologisms have a "Examples of use in public discourse" section, then so should this. Misplaced Pages, in its push towards 1.0, is going to need some conformity in this regard, a general template for certain types of articles. The Islamofacism article seems to be a decent model for this to me. Bibigon 17:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• One can think about the meta distinction here as that between "X discusses Y" and "X discusses (X' discussing Y)". Yes, "X' discussing Y" ultimately relates to Y, and as such so does "X discusses (X' discussing Y)" but that sort of recursive conceptual resolution brings up reductios best avoided insofar as Y here (Islamophobia) isn't a primitive concept itself. X and X' are people practising public discourse.
• For example, the idea of Islam underlies that of Islamophobia and that of monotheism underlies that of Islam. Is everything in this article about monotheism? Well, yes, to some degree, but that obscures a useful distinction. Given that the goal should be to communicate, that would prove counterproductive. Instead, the article should separate meta-discussion, such as criticism, from discussion, such as government ministers pronouncing Islamophobia something to oppose. Nysin 18:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Nysin i could not disagree more, islamophobia is a word/concept that is currently being defined in the world. The critisms are a part of this process not a seperate discusion. Also this is not a dictionary entry that just defines the word, it is an encyclopedia that has to show the examples of and effects of the concept in the real world. This means i think both the critisisms of islamophobia and the things people/groups are doing to combat islamophobia have a place in the artical as it is at the moment.Hypnosadist 18:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Islamophobia is a word/concept currently in the process of being defined, and criticisms are part of that. I therefore agree that criticisms of Islamophobia belong in this article. However, that doesn't erase the difference I discuss in the entry you respond to, and thus they belong in a separate section of the article, under a separate heading. Nysin 19:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The term is being used since 15 years and has a very clear definition. Criticism of Islamophobia is IMHO superfluous since every term describing a racism is derogatory by definition.Raphael1 16:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

What's the (or an) Islamic race? Nysin 17:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

What's the jewish race? Raphael1 17:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but then I'm not making claims which require me to know. Nysin 18:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no jewish race, but anti-Semitism is still a form of religious racism. Raphael1 18:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Support that using reliable sources. Nysin 18:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Jewish ethnic divisionsRaphael1 19:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, so Jews don't constitute a race. How about that "anti-Semitism is still a form of religious racism"? Nysin 19:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you honestly doubt, that anti-Semitism is a form of racism? Raphael1 20:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Missed this whilst responding to Bibigon. Whether I honestly doubt antisemitism is a form of racism isn't relevant to the validity of objections raised, but yes, I do. Because I doubt that Jews constitute a race, I doubt that one can coherently refer to racial discrimination against such a group. Nysin 05:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You might want to read Social interpretations of race resp. the American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race". Raphael1 20:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I read both of those. Interesting, but I'm not sure what specifically you had in mind? Nysin 21:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

By interpreting the term "race" socially (as "population" resp. "ethnicity") anti-Semitism as well as Islamophobia can be seen as racisms. Raphael1 22:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

A couple of points:

• The AAA statement refers only to race in scare-quotes, as something of dubious objective reality. Whilst I don't intend to take a position on whether there exists more substantiation to the notion of race here, I'll note just that the statement leaves open without too much prejudice (compare race with and without scare quotes) the possibility of such (which would support my position) and apparently views the race it describes as pernicious at best.
• The section of Social interpretations of race on "Race as a social construct and populationism" doesn't mention religious groupings, nor does the rest of the article.

Shocking, another ostensibly cited but in fact poorly supported statement by you. (Yes, AGF and all, but this gets tiresome.) Nysin 09:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Nysin, I don't grant the premise that Jews don't constitute a race. The U.S. Supreme Court has even ruled on this issue, and found that they do. Now the SCOTUS isn't a definitive authority, but I think they can be said to be a POV worth considering here. There are issues with that definition, but there are similarly issues with definining them otherwise. From the perspective of this debate, the questions are "Is someone who's Jewish connection is purely genetic subject to anti-semitism?" and "Is someone who's Islamic connection is purely genetic subject to islamophobia?" I'm not an expert in either subject, but a quick perousal of the topics and incidents reported lead me to believe the answers are in the affirmative and negative respectively. There is a legitimate difference between the nature of anti-semitism and islamophobia in this respect. Bibigon 19:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a strong position on this at the moment either way, but suggests that SCOTUS's descision was awfully circularly argued. To some degree natural language tends to operate like that, insofar as word usage can define word meaning, but the combination of the weak-looking argument (I'll look up the case itself as well, but later) and the fairly strong reply that "Common ancestry is not required to be a Jew" and yet "Race is a genetic distinction, and refers to people with shared ancestry" causes me to view SCOTUS's argument with skepticism, a notable POV though it may be. Nysin 19:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This is why I suggested that there are issues with the definition of Jews as a race, namely, that one can become a Jew. However, cases of conversion are relatively rare, and the vast majority of cases of anti-semitism I would postulate have not been directed at converts, at least not at recent converts. On the other hand, a sizable amount of anti-semitism is directly at people who are Jewish only by blood, and live secular lives, without any claims of faith. Nazi Germany for instance operated in this respect on the basis of genetics, not on the basis of faith. Those who had one genetically Jewish grandparent were labled as being sufficiently Jewish for their purposes. This, along with other similar cases, suggests strongly to me that it is a race. Bibigon 20:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest, that you reconsider the reliablility of your sources. Refering to Nazi Germany as a source for information is dubious to say the least. Raphael1 20:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate on this point? Why exactly is Nazi Germany a dubious source on this issue? Bibigon 20:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but explaining that to you is just below my threshold level. Raphael1 21:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to forgive me if such an answer doesn't satisfy my curiosity. This leads me to suspect that you don't really have a good reason for doubting the reliability of this source. Bibigon 21:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but there is no genetic connection to Judaism. For example Palestinian Muslims are members of the Semitic ethnicity too, but they are not targeted by anti-Semitism. Raphael1 20:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

All this does is suggest that anti-semitism isn't targetted at semitic people. The vast majority(Ashkenazi) of Jews aren't a semitic people is what the research I've read suggests. Pointing out that other semitic people aren't subject to anti-semitism doesn't mean that Judaism isn't a race, just that it's a not a semitic race. Bibigon 20:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you discuss your theory with the editors of the Judaism article. They clearly state, that Judaism is a religion not a race. Raphael1 20:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

1. No they don't. I don't know why you think you can make verifiably false statements and not be called out on it, but whatever. The only mention of race in that article is in connection to reform judaism. Nowhere else do they even bring up the race/religion debate.

2. Even if other Misplaced Pages articles did go so far as to say that it's not a race, I'm not wild about the idea of Misplaced Pages referencing itself as a source. But that's really a secondary issue here, given that you haven't shown yet that other Wiki articles have taken a stand on this question. If they fail to mention the debate, then that's a weakness of the articles, given that they would be failing to represent the POV of SCOTUS, among many others. It remains of limited relevance here however. Bibigon 20:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Raphael1, you couldn't be more wrong about the term Islamophobia having a clear definition. Don't you recall this discussion about how the term wasn't even found in numerous well respected dictionary references? Netscott 19:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Anti-semitism is the belief that Jewish people "have the right" to feel offended by other's beliefs in the New Testament and more specificly in Jesus...White people "hating" blacks is no different than blacks "hating" Jews...is nonsence, and it should be filed down as Ignorance; and that is, the rejection of acceptance of a contradictory logistical value...

For the most, in the United States, white people see black people at night and they get scarred, could that be called blackophobia?...theres no such thing as islamophobia, what you are trying to explain is why people like to dislike other people...

I don't think you could add Islamophobia under clinical use of the 'phobia', so then you can't call the ignorance or hatred of Islam people "phobia"("In other words, unlike clinical phobias, which are usually qualified with disabling fear, class discrimination usually have roots in social relations") because the hatred and ignorance is 'real'("Whereas a fear of (say) a large predatory animal or of a hurricane, as a rational fear, does not classify as a phobia, because such encounters carry a possibility of harm or death.")...some people do 'feel' strongly about 'threat' possed by Muslims(whether fundamentalist or not, just ask the president of the free world)...and this is mainly going by wiki's own attempt at giving a 'defenition' to some of these terms...

Wiki is cool, but defining a defenition of another concept is, well, not cool.("Creating these terms is somewhat of a word game.")

Usage of the actual Islamophobia term in this article

For NPOV reasons this article needs to actually not use the term when discussing its use by others... this is another part of the reason that I've initiated the "Examples of use in public discourse" section. The section title "Efforts against Islamophobia" falls afoul of this principal concerning neutrality. Netscott 20:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The article should of course use the term itself, just as the articles on anti-Semitism and racism use the terms they describe. Misplaced Pages:Verifiability does not mean, that every article needs to put all it's content in a section called "Examples of use in public discourse". It is enough to cite sources so the statements become verifiable. Raphael1 20:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Raphael1, you're failing to understand the difference between an established term like anti-Semitism and a neologism like islamophobia, this is one of the reasons necessitating not actually using the term islamophobia in the article about it. Netscott 21:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• What about the neologisms Genocide, Cyberspace, Westernization or War on Terrorism? All of those articles are using the term and none has a section called "Examples of use in public discourse". Raphael1 23:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

None of those articles identifies the terms of being neologisms I believe. They are all significantly better defined and understood than islamophobia. Bibigon 00:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Nonetheless all of those terms are neologisms. Do you think, that our readers will understand the term better, if it has a section called "Examples of use in public discourse"? Raphael1 10:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The following Misplaced Pages guidelines in effect support not actually using the "islamophobia" term when editing on Misplaced Pages: Misplaced Pages:Avoid neologisms. Let us please take these guidelines to heart and follow them accordingly. Netscott 08:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Your sincerity to only follow the guidelines would be much more plausible, if you'd have filed an AfD on War on Terrorism as well. Raphael1 09:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Opening definition

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

Islamophobia Cat

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

Category for Deletion: Islamophobia

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

Just because Islamophobia is becoming more widespread and more recognisable to some people does not mean it is something new, it has existed for a long time like Francophobia has , though I can not see Netscott nominating Francophobia for deletion ,hmmm I wonder why?

The following comment on Misplaced Pages would be a example of Islamophobia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Islam_by_country&diff=55120739&oldid=51233121

--Taz Manchester

intro section

Why do we mention the reports from HRW and CAIR that allege that there has been an "increase in hate crimes against Muslims and Islamic organizations", in the intro section? None of our sources that we refer to even mention the term "islamophobia". -- Karl Meier 22:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

They mention hate crimes against Muslims, which is islamophobic per definition. Raphael1 22:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a very big claim Raphael. Who says that all "hate crimes" against Muslims are per definition "islamophobic"? -- Karl Meier 22:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Raphael is right. Islamophobia is a prejudice or hatred against Muslims. Anti-Muslim hate crimes result from prejudice or hatred against Muslims. Faz90 22:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

So you reject the possiblity that anyone that commit a "hate crime" against a Muslim could have other motives than what you call "islamophobia"? -- Karl Meier 22:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I in good faith reverted Karl's removal of this info but I too see why there should be reservations about having the info in the article as it stands. Wouldn't it be more pertinent to include examples of these organizations' actual utilization of the term "islamophobia" in the intro in terms of prejudice and hatred against followers of Islam? Netscott 22:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Protection

I have protected this article to prevent edit warring. Feel free to post on WP:RFPP to request unprotection; admins may unprotect this without further reference to me. Stifle (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks pretty much like a two-hander between Karl Meier and Irishpunktom to me. Can't we just warn them to stop playing silly buggers? --Tony Sidaway 16:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Netscott and raphael1 are involved too. There is going to be Mediation. --Irishpunktom\ 17:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediation seems appropriate at this time. Netscott 17:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

If there's going to be mediation, then provided the parties agree to stop editing the article during mediation we can remove protection. --Tony Sidaway 17:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Request for Mediation

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

Renaming proposal

I suffest the name Anti-Muslim sentiment, for several reasons:

• More neutral
• more encompassing in terms of the range of attitudes
• the therm is common: "anti-Muslim" vs "anti-Islamic" is 5:1 in google
• more correct: the target are people (Muslims), not religion. The distinction of "muslim" vs. "islam" is notable eg. in questions how to say correctly: "islamic scholar" or "Muslim scholar" and in many other cases.

`'mikka (t) 23:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

We have a naming convention, Islamophobia is a far more widespread and acepted term than "Anti-Muslim sentiment"--Irishpunktom\ 00:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It is widespread, but what's its usage? We have Persecution of Muslims and Historical persecution by Muslims articles. Is it Islamophobia? BTW "anti-Muslim" word is just as widespread as Islamophobia, and if you remove wikipedia and mirrors, it is even more widespread. Not to say that you did not answer my arguments. And forgetting than majority rule is not the only naming convention. `'mikka (t) 00:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

After re-reading the article, I am withdrawing my suggestion. Indeed, the article is about Islamophobia. On the other hand, I see the need of the wider topic, Anti-Muslim sentiment, which is barely scratched in the Islamophobia, which is 80% about the word, i.e., in a way an overblown dicdef. `'mikka (t) 00:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Request

Category:Pejorative political terms should be added. --tickle me 13:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about that myself but while the term "islamophobia" is definitely frequenlty used in a pejorative sense it is also used non-pejoratively. In this sense "islamophobia" doesn't really compare to say for example islamofascism or islamikaze whose usages are almost exclusively in a pejorative sense. Netscott 13:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Implying that the target of a political or moral qualification is ill, as the suffix phobia compels, is inherently pejorative. E.g. "anti-Semite" denotes a political or moral statement or indictement. "Semitophobe" would also put in doubt the addressees sanity. For this, there's no clinical evidence. Besides, I don't know of examples of non pejorative usage. --tickle me 14:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

While I understand the logic you're explaining, try reading the actual islamophobia article if you haven't already and you'll find it's been used non-pejoratively. Netscott 14:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thx, I did. I don't doubt that is possible to use the term on neutral grounds, but that applies to any word. An etymological or sociological study of any four letter word will refer to its object sine ira et studio - and Kofi Annan is not supposed to be rude ever. However, any tenacious proponent of the concept is likely to avoid the aspect of pejoration, while actually aiming at the opponent's delegitimization by association: phobia -> illness. That's an inherent property of any pejorative political term: go for the man, not his opinion. --tickle me 17:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Whilst I suspect I agree with your overall premise, at least one article cited contains someone reluctantly allowing their own views to be labeled as Islamophobic:

Asked about those who say that Jews should not vote for a party that espouses xenophobia, Dewinter replied: “Xenophobia is not the word I would use. If it absolutely must be a ‘phobia,’ let it be ‘Islamophobia.’

I'm not sure if it makes sense to call one's own statements about oneself or own's own beliefs prejorative. This does, however, appear to be an unusual exception, and a reluctant one at that. Nysin 22:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"Dewinter": there are many more. However, tongue-in-cheek ghetto kids calling themselves "Nigger" or "bitch" don't make these words not being pejorative both semantically and etymologically, lest we go back to Roman or middle English times, which I propose not to do. Moreover, we could deconstruct any slur by regress to examples of irony and sarcasm of the adressees. --tickle me 01:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia is deffinately used perjoritively, but it also can be merely discriptive unlike "nigger". The use as an insult stems from the fact that most people think discrimination is a negative thing, so that being called one (ie an islamophobe) is an insult. There is the feel as well that the negative nature of this term is then used to alter the political process by denying legitamate demorcratic debate about islam, that really is the deffinition of perjoritive.Hypnosadist 16:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Introduction?

The introduction to this article is a painful mess. Why is it still protected when there hasn't been any discussion of the content of the article on this page for at least a fortnight? — JEREMY 17:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I am requesting unprotection at this time. There has been no substantive progress made on the talk page. Unprotection should be tried and then re-added if there are users causing trouble. Calwatch 06:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Could we then do away with this term, and work on Anti-Muslim sentiment rather? There were more reasons given to follow this route than to continue finding defenitions to 'islamophobia' instead of actually explain what it is, even in a practical use of the term itself...Anti-Muslim sentiment should be the term use to at least give a voice to those who believe Muslims are being discriminated against based on their beliefs/traditions/custom/perceived violence roots...and thus, making the 'phobia' mute and ignorance perpetual.

The unsigned user misses one of the main points that the use of this term as a propaganda tool is an important part of this artical as it is about the use of this word in public and political discourse. If you want to start an artical that is called Anti-Muslim sentiment and is about "at least give a voice to those who believe Muslims are being discriminated against based on their beliefs/traditions/custom/perceived violence roots" then do so.Hypnosadist 10:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Understood your concern...but have you seen the words they expect middle school kids to spell?...this could easily become just another word at the spelling bee 'competition'...we can't quite give more ammunition to those who wants to cloud the HUMAN language, let alone the english language...propaganda does not help anyone...and thus, our dissatisfaction with terms like this, in order to 'uncloud' our mentality even more from words with empty meanings (Orwell)...

And I know the book...and I know the page...

This article absolutely needs to stay. Previously I had concerns about this article defining the term and thought that it should be deleted on those grounds but the days of this article actually defining the word are over now. There is no doubt that the concept and history of the term "Islamophobia" warrant an article about it. Netscott 19:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The only article that would be relevant about this term is a medical report on the subjects...anything less and its a ready-ad...

Forest gate

Rapheal1 i think socialist worker is not usually a reputable source neigther are small media collectives that don't name the reporter. Only the MAB quote is of possible relivence. You don't need the two other quotes to say any time the security services screw-up its ISLAMOPHOBIA!!!!!!!Hypnosadist 22:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, WP:Reliable_sources's canonical examples of unreliable sources come rather close:

Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident. However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or the British Socialist Workers Party. Groups like these may be used as primary sources only i.e. as sources about themselves, and even then with caution and sparingly. Extremist groups should not be used as secondary sources.

Nysin 06:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the Socialist Workers reference. Raphael1 11:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article really needs a clean up - from simple grammar to ridiculously short sentences editors if you please? Danlibbo 00:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Whilst I agree a cleanup would benefit this article, I don't see why simple grammar, per se, proves deleterious to it. Further, as suggests the core text (excluding long lists of URLs, for example) contains an average of 22 words/sentence, I don't see the basis of your claim of ridiculously short sentences except for the possibility I've neither verified nor refuted that a suboptimally wide statistical deviation from that mean exists. Could you please clarify? Nysin 06:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Could the following statement be removed: The Dutch parliament has voted in favour of a proposal to ban the burqa in public, which has led to similar accusations.

The Dutch parliament has NEVER voted on the Burqa or a proposed ban, so this is simply not true. It was discussed in the media by a few politicians and the Minister for Immigration is studying if it is legally possible to ban the burqa, but that's about it. Dee, 19 June 2006 17:33

OK so the link to the BBC says those exact words and then later on in the artical goes on to explain that this is not a vote enacting the law, but rather a vote to say we want this law drafting. As i understand what is happening at the moment is that the cabinette of the dutch government were given the job of crafting this law. They are at the moment consulting with there internal legal team to see if this is legal under EU human rights law. This makes the short quote missleading at best. If a dutch wikipedian could get us some more detail on the situation constitutionally as what the state of play really is at the moment, that would be really good.Hypnosadist 23:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

YA NOR violation

Raphael, please stop citing references in which no claim of "Islamophobia" is actually made. Nysin 05:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed that reference, though I don't perceive WP:OR as an order to stop thinking. Even the US Marine Corps agrees with the Council on American-Islamic Relations, who consider that video clearly inappropriate. Nysin, what do you think motivated this marine to write and sing that song? Raphael1 11:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not an order to stop thinking, and I've never stated such. I'm not going to speculate at the moment as to what motivated this marine to write and sing that song, but unless a reliable source states it to be Islamophobia, it's not WP's business to do so in their stead. Nysin 22:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Gitmo ref

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

.nl efforts against Islamophobia section

Said section violates NPOV regardless ("... an islamophobic book ..."), but could also stand for someone capable to ensure, as has not always been the case, that it's not OR. In particular, even the paragraph added states it was cited for "inciting hatred", not "Islamophobia", exactly. This issue becomes more subtle when accounting for translation, though. Nysin 10:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think "islamophobic book" is not POV given this book was banned for "inciting racial hatred" it could be argued that thats a conviction for "islamophobia" or near as, under Dutch law. Also i think the name of the auther should be mentioned, Pakistani cabaret artist Zoka F. published under the pseudonym "Mohammed Rasoel".

Heres a link to an english translation of this book that might be usful, it could be placed in the references of the artical. It does have a warning at the top of the page indicating that this book has been banned as inciting race hatered so no-one should stumble opon it unaware of what it is. http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/heroes/downfall.htm Hypnosadist 12:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV says:

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

The section, as currently written, asserts that the book is Islamophobic, and thus violates NPOV. Nysin 12:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

OK how about re-writing saying just that this book was banned for race hatred which some people beleave this is an example of what later would be called islamophobia?Hypnosadist 12:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR#What_is_excluded.3F says:

However, original research is more than just no personal crank theories. It also excludes editors' personal views, political opinions, their personal analysis or interpretation of published material, as well as any unpublished synthesis of published material, where such a synthesis appears to advance a position or opinion an editor may hold, or to support an argument or definition s/he may be trying to propose. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Misplaced Pages must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article . See this example for more details.

Wherein the potential NOR violation arises. It's unclear so far the linked source approaches calling it Islamophobia (which is dubiously race hatred or anything else, as other portions of this talk page attest, to begin with) to avoid its being a synthesis. In particular, if this book was labeled as inciting racial hatred before the term Islamophobia effectively existed, that seems almost unavoidable. Nysin 13:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

OK what about keeping the sentance as it is but removing the word islamaphobic and adding the link i provided so people could read it for themselves and make up there own mind?Hypnosadist 14:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

At which point, what claim is the article making to justify its inclusion? Your link is interesting, but unless a reliable source actually connects it to Islamophobia, including it in the article looks like synthesis. Nysin 18:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The claim is that this has been found in a reputable court of law to be incitful of the hatred of muslims, that is not OR its just reportage.Hypnosadist 18:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

However, to them call being "inciteful of the hatred of Muslims" unambiguous Islamophobia requires, at minimum, having more confidence in one's definition of Islamophobia than this article appears to suggest is warranted. Thus, it's a synthesis, for example, of the ODE and the verdict of the Dutch court. Nysin 19:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

and label the book as anti-islamic. Possibly the better word to use? A link to the english translation would be a good addition for interested readers. --Zero g 19:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you agree to anti-islamic Nysin?Hypnosadist 19:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Zero g, I experience timeouts in attempting to access , but I do see that your first link labels it anti-Islamic explicitly. As such, I wouldn't have a problem with regards to OR with Misplaced Pages stating such, and wouldn't with NPOV so long as it didn't actually assert its being anti-Islamic, but used some variant of the template "X says Y is anti-Islamic". However, that gets back to the question I had before of relevance. If, whilst following NOR and NPOV, one can't actually tie this to "Islamophobia", what place has it in an Islamophobia article?

There's a case for having an article about anti-Muslim sentiment, for example, but this article, as that talk page section points out, isn't really it. Nysin 19:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Given that you agree with Zero g why don't you rewrite accordingly and then we can see what we think. It should be cool.Hypnosadist 20:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

anti-Muslim sentiment redirects to Islamophobia so I asume Islamaphobia can be seen as a generic term that doesn't have to be explicitly stated as such in order to be viable for this article. For your convenience, it is labeled as 'islamofobie' in the following source: http://www.discourses.org/De%20Rasoel-Komrij%20Affaire.pdf --Zero g 21:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll agree to relevance, NOR, and (if phrased differently) NPOV. Further, I agree that Hypnosadist's link belongs in the article alongside it. Nysin 21:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Queen Noor

Would anyone please care to explain, why the statement of Queen Noor is supposed to be in the section, which lists (alleged) examples of Islamophobia? IMHO Queen Noor clearly is not islamophobic at all, instead she makes an effort against Islamophobia. Raphael1 00:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm editing to clarify this as we speak. It appears that there are some general references that are in the "efforts against" section that don't mention any specific plan of attack in terms of countering "islamophobia". Netscott 00:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Karl Meier and I are doing the work that's been needing to be done in terms of properly attributing the utilization of the term to those parties doing so. Maybe you could help? Netscott 00:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Raphael1, I've divided up the references section into three sections to better distinguish the information about the various types of references in response to your inquiry here. What do you think? Netscott 13:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I disapprove that separation into "views" and "acts", because it's almost impossible to do. How can you say, that an islamophobic journalist writing a book is merely having a "view" and what about the BNP using widespread Islamophobia in their election campaign? Nobody who merely has an islamophobic view will ever be listed here, because we'd never find out unless he "acts" based on his views. Raphael1 21:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Changed a lil

I changed the opening line; to show that there are differences of opinion regarding the definitions we highlight two examples. I have removed three Block quotes, there are many names mention with thei opinions, there is no obvious reason why these three people deserved such lengthy quotes. I have moved a report detailing the alleged existence of the concept away the efforts against, because its not, its a report into it. Efforts against it may come from it, but it, by itself, is not. --Irishpunktom\ 15:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Irishpunktom since you were the editor who created the "efforts against Islamophobia" section please explain your definition of what is supposed to be there. Based upon the content that is there the definition you're going by is less than clear. There are a number of quotes of people towards such ends (like Queen Noor below) but don't specifically mention a particular "effort" against "islamophobia" (say like the OIC's effort). Netscott 15:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what it is you are asking for? Queen Noor isn't in there any more, and the OIC has set up an observatory on Islamophobia so as to "tackle the issue of Islamophobia everywhere." The setting up of an Observatory is an effort.--Irishpunktom\ 16:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm saying that the OIC as well as the kingdom of Jordan's call, and the British government setting up of initiatives but your quote of former prime minister Jan Peter Balkenende isn't an effort nor is Ken Livingstone's quote and not the cite of The Downfall of the Netherlands either. What is the definition you're going by to include such one time quotes, etc? Netscott 16:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The Downfall of the Netherlands is notable due to how rare it was to have a book banned in Holland, also that much of what he wrote in the book has come to pass and more with the killing of Theo van Gogh (film director).Hypnosadist 21:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Piers Benn

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

Quoting "Islamophobia"

I'm not happy having to do this... as I think doing so is a bit distracting but the need for a neutral point of view regarding the term is very evident when there's such a prominent "critcism" section of the concept and the term. Additionally much like User:Karl Meier I've begun including citation details regarding individual references and I encourage fellow editors to continue in this regard particularly for neutrality reasons. Netscott 16:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: In accord with this discussion I have in good faith removed quote marks from section titles until such time as the question of utilization of the actual term in the article is established through Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. (→Netscott) 16:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The quoting is just one sign of obvious bias in the article. Another sign is the first sentence: "Islamophobia is a neologism with no agreed definition." As if any other term - even a relative old one like "anti-Semitism" - has an agreed definition found in every dictionary. Raphael1 21:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Raphael1 ever one to be quick to assume good faith. Let's see who put the "no agreed definition" part in.... Hmm, Irishpunktom, a muslim. Raphael1.... please assume good faith. Thanks. (→ Netscott ←) 21:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Irishpunktom probably wouldn't have put that sentence in, if you wouldn't have replaced our consented definition with that IMHO poor Oxford definition. Raphael1 01:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Raphael1 I'm going to be breaking WP:NPA and WP:CIV in saying this but, you're an idiot who wastes people's time with your lack of mastery of the application of logic and your continued false accusations and tendentious disruptive editing and proxy behavior. Don't forget you've previously falsely called me a liar and never apologized. One can assume good faith for so long but with your repeated demonstrations there is no other word to best describe you but idiot and I mean that in the fullest sense... do read the idiot article. Karl Meier is the one who made that change. User:Azate didn't say it directly but his words essentially mean that you are also incompetent outside of your specialty which apparently is computer related (and even there I'd have my doubts). (→Netscott) 02:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You did that change as well. Raphael1 19:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Nothing like implicitly verifying my previous statements Raphael1, well done. Please note in that diff that it involved the "Use in public discourse" section that was the primary subject of our pre-page protection content dispute. (→Netscott) 19:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, you've been warned about making personal attacks, and you yourself have given warnings againt it. I'm surprised at you. Also, the use of scare quotes is excessive, they should be removed. --Irishpunktom\ 13:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Irishpunktom, since you've not refuted anything I've said in my above commentary are you expressing an implicit agreement with it? Your own commentary in Raphael1's RfAr seems slightly indicative when you yourself said, "Raphael asked me to come here, and so I have." as though you weren't really inclined to otherwise. As far as quoting the word "islamophobia", there are ways of writing this article that are in accord with a neutral point of view that would negate the need for the quotes but despite my efforts to move in that direction my edits keep getting reverted. Let's be honest it is not at all neutral for the article about the concept and term to be using it when there is such a significant section regarding criticism of both, is it? (→Netscott) 14:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, this is somewhat irrelevent to the matter at hand, but I added that because it was true. Its not that I was really inclined to otherwise, its that I was unaware till I was informed, and thats why my additions were late in the process. Calling people idiots is not nice man, its incivil and should be avoided. Also, scare quotes should be avoided, there are plenty of disputed terms in Misplaced Pages, New anti-Semitism, Islamofascism, Loony left, none of which use scare quotes the way this does. --Irishpunktom\ 14:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It is relevant when User:Raphael1 demonstrates that he's not assuming good faith in my editing here and repeatedly makes false accusations in that regard. Irishpunktom the lead sentence in the Application section of Islamofascism reads thusly, 'Some writers have used "Islamofascism" to refer strictly to Islamic movements'. Why are you utilizing that term for comparison then? (→Netscott) 15:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Even Loony left reads thusly, 'The columnist for The Guardian and The Independent, Peter Jenkins, recorded policies which were dubbed "loony left" by the media ... ' and comparison to new anti-Semitism is a false analogy as anti-Semitism is a well established term fully in the English lexicon with "new" attached to the front of it to distinguish it from the "old" anti-semitism. (→Netscott) 15:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

New anti-semitism is not a well established term, it is seen by many as a way of attacking people who are critical of Israel. --Irishpunktom\ 15:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right it's not a "term", it is a phrase whose comparison in this regard to the term islamophobia is a false analogy. Please respond to my other points. (→Netscott) 15:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what makes you think its not a term? And, exactly, why is it a false analogy? --Irishpunktom\ 09:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Comment: Due to previous interactions between myself and User:Kafziel he recused himself from this discussion as a provider of a third opinion. Correspondingly he reverted this issue back as a request on WP:3O. As the original requestor for WP:3O involvement I have since removed my (restablished) original WP:3O request and intend to file a request for comment surrounding the issue here. (→Netscott) 15:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm here from Third Opinion.

To get right to it, I see no problem with using the term "Islamophobia" within the article itself. This is an encyclopedia article, not a dictionary definition. It's perfectly normal to use the word being discussed, even if it is controversial. For comparison, the homophobia article uses that term no fewer than 30 times (not counting section headings). As controversial as the word nigger is, the article is still permitted to use the term in its discussion. This case is no different.

I also agree that the scare quotes used in the article are inappropriate. Quotation marks should be used to denote quotes or titles, never to imply skepticism or disagreement. Kafziel 14:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Kafziel, thank you for coming and giving your third opinion. Unfortunately comparing the word islamophobia to homophobia and nigger is a false analogy. The reason this is true is that the word Islamophobia is not well established in the English lexicon like homophobia or nigger. Please see the survey below. I'm thinking this question is going to need to be presented in an RfC.

Cambridge:

• homophobia
• islamophobia

Merriam Webster OnLine:

• homophobia
• islamophobia

MSN Encarta:

• homophobia
• islamophobia

You requested a third opinion. I gave it. This is what mediation is for. If you won't accept it, you shouldn't have posted a request there. From the introduction to WP:3O: "The third-opinion process requires good faith on all sides. If you think that either editor involved in a dispute will not listen to a third opinion with good faith, do not request a third opinion."

If your only argument against using it is that it's a neologism, then you can forget it. If it could be shown to be a neologism, the article itself could be deleted. Consensus has twice held that it is not. With that nearly unanimous consensus in mind, I disregarded that aspect of your argument and found no other differences between this topic and the examples I listed. Kafziel 15:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

My argument is that there is a very prominent critcism section regarding the concept but more particularly the term itself. Niether of those other articles has such a section. Look at this section, notice anything funny there? (→Netscott) 15:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

As well WP:3O is not the last stop in the dispute resolution process. (→Netscott) 15:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It can be the last stop, if both parties are willing to listen. No part of the dispute resolution process should just be blown off because it's "not the last stop". If you look at it that way, then the last stop is being banned. You requested the third opinion, and now you choose to ignore it? Something tells me that if I had agreed with your position, you would have used that decision to settle your disagreement.

And no, I don't see anything funny about the section you linked to. It uses the term homophobia. Kafziel 15:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

In your previous commentary you mentioned "If you think that either editor involved in a dispute will not listen to a third opinion with good faith ... " have I demonstrated that I'm not listening to a third opinion in good faith? The section title is, '"Homophobia" as applied to political figures'. Despite its established nature the word homophobia is in quotes. (→Netscott) 15:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Kafziel, I hate to be wikilaywerly but given our previous interactions I'm surprised you didn't recuse yourself from joining this discussion based upon the WP:3O policy:

"Third opinions should be perceived as neutral. Do not offer a third opinion if you've had past dealings with the article or editors involved in the dispute. Make sure to write your opinion in a civil and nonjudgmental way." (→Netscott) 15:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, until you just said that, I didn't know we had ever spoken before. I didn't recognize the name, and no offense but I deal with a lot of people on Misplaced Pages. For the record, my opinion was written in a very civil and nonjudgemental way. You just didn't like it.

I take it that means you want someone else to offer a Third Opinion? Okay, I'll reinstate your request at 3O. Perhaps you can find someone who agrees with you next time (at which point, as I said, I'm sure you'll suddenly consider 3O to be the final word). Good luck. Kafziel 15:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not reinstate the request... this issue looks as though it'll require an RfC. Thanks for taking the time to review this question of utilization or not. Cheers. (→Netscott) 15:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Roger Hardy

I still don't see why Roger Hardys definition should be notable enough to be mentioned. Has anyone used it, refered to it, or repeated it anywhere? What makes it important? -- Karl Meier 23:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a definition by the BBCs Islamic Affairs analyst. The BBC's Islamic Affairs analyst is notable enough to warrant inclusion. --Irishpunktom\ 09:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right that he is notable, but doesn't in itself make his definition notable and worth mentioning in this article. My question was: Why is his definition notable? What makes it important enough to be mentioned? Has anyone used it, refered to it or repeated it anywhere? -- Karl Meier 17:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

As the BBC is such a significant world class level media outlet; on the surface of this question, I'm inclined to agree with Irishpunktom. (→Netscott) 17:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is supposed to be concise, and we are only to include the most important definitions in it. The question is not if Roger Hardy or the BBC is notable or at a world class level. What matters is quite simply if the definitino is important enough to be mentined. My question is: Why is the definition that is mentioned as a short sideremark in an article about another subject important enough to be mentioned? -- Karl Meier 17:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well the fact that the definition of this term is in a rather nebulous state it makes sense to be citing how folks are defining it, particularly folks who are in key positions to influence how the term is coming to be understood. Roger Hardy is in such a position. (→Netscott) 18:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It is of course true that Roger Hardy is indeed in a position where he can influence how the term is used, but that doesn't mean that he has actually done it. I am of course not against the idea that we should mention how different people and organizations has defined the term, but I believe it is a reasonable requirement for inclusion that we are somehow able to demonstrate that their definition is notable, has made an impact and has been mentioned somewhere. In cases such as this with Roger Hardy I believe it is even more important because of the fact that ,his "definition" of the term is only a short side remark in an article regarding another topic. The "Characterizations" section is already quite heavily populated, and if we are going to mention every short remark regarding what the definition of Islamophbia might be, from everyone that might be notable, then it's going to be a very long section for our readers to go through. -- Karl Meier 20:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Were people really wearing Qur'ans in French schools?

Not carrying them around, but sporting them as accessories of some kind? Haven't seen that here in N. America. Cites, please. Passage in question is about wearing religious symbols. BYT 15:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know but i've heard of Cristians carrying minature bibles as lockets or broaches (particularly Catholics in europe) so may have picked up the concept there, know of no Muslim in britain that does that though. Also i have seen Arabic travel Korans of the 17th-19th century that are small and protected in decorated silver and leather cases that could easily be made into a necklace.Hypnosadist 15:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Me too, but I've never seen anyone wear such a thing. Hang it from a taxicab's rear view mirror, maybe, but not as a necklace. Am I missing something here, or is this a hypothetical case designed to make it look like the French law "authorizes" a form of expression in which no one is engaging or is likely to engage? BYT 15:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No idea as to the motivations of the french government other than the fact they saw the young muslim women stating wear the hijab as a support for radical islam and hence terrorism. This IMO was silly to say the least as i know of no acts of terror carried out with lengths of cloth as the weapon, but thats what happens when you get into the murcky depths of thought crimes (like islamophobia before someone commits a crime!).Hypnosadist 16:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Unless there is a citation pointing to someone actually wearing a Qur'an in a French school, this element should be deleted. BYT 16:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Folks the law wasn't specifically about "wearing" anything but about religous displays. Going around with a Qu'ran in your hand is definitely a religious display and the law allows for that. (→Netscott) 16:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

1) Does anyone else -- someone in France, say, who is charged with upholding this law -- consider carrying a Qur'an to be religious display? Again, do we have a citation of some kind?

2) Who came up with this idea that carrying the Qur'an constitutes a religious display? Was it us, the editors of Misplaced Pages, or was it someone in France? If it's the latter, do we have a citation of some kind?

3) Just to clarify: Do you consider the Chief Justice of the United States to be making a religious display when he holds out the Bible for the President to use to take the oath of office? BYT 16:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Netscott is right the law does not mention specific things that are banned just ostentaous religious symbols. This is really a law to ban prmoting religion in secular french schools, not by the schools(who are already covered by many laws) but by pupils on other pupils. The very subjective nature of this law is one of the many complaints against it.PS to answer 3) yes i do very much!Hypnosadist 16:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Quickly to answer 3, absolutely and that is 180 degrees out of accord with separation of church and state just like when the U.S. Government decided to make "In God We Trust" a national motto in 1956. (→Netscott) 16:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Answer to 1) is teachers first then headmasters using usual school punishments, if the person keeps offending the school has to take the child to court as i understand this law.

2)No ideaHypnosadist 16:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I still would like to know the following from Netscott:

1) Does anyone else -- someone in France, say, who is charged with upholding this law -- consider carrying a Qur'an to be religious display? Again, do we have a citation of some kind?

2) Who came up with this idea that carrying the Qur'an constitutes a religious display? Was it us, the editors of Misplaced Pages, or was it someone in France? If it's the latter, do we have a citation of some kind? BYT 16:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

A BBC news citation is mentioned in the article, in the sentence that discusses the matter. The other external link in the same sentence uses Fatima's hand as an example of allowed small symbol (I'm half guessing, I don't speak French). Mystically, over time the article repeatedly tends to lose all mention of any Islamic symbols and only cite Christian and Jewish symbols as allowed. A lot of unfortunate bias creep here... Weregerbil 18:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Great. That's what I was looking for. Many thanks. Perhaps this article should be referenced specifically in the portion where we talk about Qur'ans being considered on a par with stars of David, etc.? (Or is it already there -- did I space out and miss that?) Should we specify that we're talking about miniature Qur'ans, as referenced in the cite you just provided? And presumably carried, not worn? BYT 18:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we phrase it so that we don't invent things outside the sources? If size needs to be mentioned how about "pocket-sized Qur'an" as in the source, not "miniature", "microscopic", "so tiny the reader can't possibly read it and thus the law is discriminatory", ... And not specify on what body part or hidden crevice of clothing the object must reside in, just remove "wearing of" and "display of", like in the source. Conspicuous symbols are disallowed, small ones allowed. Weregerbil 18:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

"Islamophobia is a neologism with no agreed definition. For example, the 2003 edition of the New Oxford Dictionary of English refers to Islamophobia as "hatred or fear of Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force" while Princeton University's "Word Net" defines Islamophobia as "prejudice against Muslims"."

This introduction is ridiculous. Prejudice, hatred and fear are not mutually exclusive and represent different aspects of the same bigotry. By this logic, homophobia has no agreed definition either, as you can find similar differing definitions of homophobia in diffferent dictionaries. Deuterium 11:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop pushing you prefered definition of the term. If you read the article you will discover that there are several definitions of this new term, and that the definition and concept itself is disputed. Mentioning some from notable dictionaries in the intro section is entirely reasonable, and provide the readers with useful information regrading the term. -- Karl Meier 12:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Another thing is that you are disrupting a highly controversial article, where other editors - after a lot of work and many discussions and revert-wars - has finally made some progress and created a reasonably stable version of the article.

No, the definition of Islamophobia is quite simple and clear and comparable to homophobia or xenophobia. Even though there is debate about the exact meaning of the word, that does not mean that it has "no agreed definition" whatsoever. That's a silly and biased way to start the article, and it wouldn't pass muster on, say, the homophobia article. There's debate about the meaning of most terms, but that does not mean there "is no agreed definition" for them. Deuterium 12:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

For example here are two different definitions of homophobia from different sources at dictionary.com

"Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men."

"Prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality"

I suppose you'd conclude that there was no agreed definition of homophobia? Deuterium 12:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you here to make useful unbiased edits to the Islamophobia article or just to make some WP:Point regarding "Homophobia"? -- Karl Meier 12:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If you have some problem with the homophobia article, then go edit that instead of disrupting the work here. -- Karl Meier 12:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to understand the logic that goes from A. two slightly different dictionary definitions to B. there is no agreed definition of the term.

Because it makes no sense to me. "Prejudice", "hate" and "fear" are overlapping terms with lots of shared meaning. Deuterium

This article is absolutely not to be defining the term "islamophobia" to do so is original research. If a defintion is going to be set up in the intro then it had better well be well sourced and cited. (→Netscott) 08:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

What? Of course it is to be defining Islamophobia. That's what it's about. It should define the basic accepted meaning of the term (and there is one) and THEN describe different interpretations, not the other way around. Deuterium 10:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but that is very wrong. Please know that, "Misplaced Pages is NOT a dictionary or idiom guide". Please cite definitions when adding them. (→Netscott) 10:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding Deuterium - obviously an article has to specify what it is about, and that includes defining (to some extent) whatever term it is about. Not necessarily prescribing a definition (as per a dictionary), but at least indicating roughly what the term the article is about means. certainly the intro as is, is extremely clumsy --Coroebus 10:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, this article is not to be defining this term. The intro could use some work agreed, but fellow editors absolutely need to be citing any particular definition(s) they are including in the intro... as according to my own source research and the source research of Mulsim editor User:Irishpunktom there is currently no agreed defintion of this word. (→Netscott) 10:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm with Deuterium on this one, your claims of 'no agreed definition' seem like OR to me, particularly given as those two definitions are extremely similar. And as I said, you don't need to define it prescriptively, just say that it is used to refer to prejudice or fear of Islam or Muslims, if you want to quibble about details later then we can do so in the body. You don't see articles on other terms, like homophobia or anti-Semitism, which have much better introductions which spell out what we all broadly mean by the term before getting tied up in knots about having a precise definition, paradoxically, it seems to be you that wants to define (in the prescriptive sense) the term in the intro, whereas I'd simply like a description of what people mean by it. --Coroebus 10:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Would you kindly do a survey of dictionaries relative to the word "islamophobia" and "homophobia" and then come back to talk about what you found? Thanks. (→Netscott) 10:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Can't find it in many places, but where I have found it, it has a definition that reflects the (bloody obvious) one I listed above (it is Islam and phobia, so that is what you'd expect), and homophobia has a similar definition. I'm failing to see your point here, particularly since the term is a neologism and thus defined by usage, and usage is guided by the blatant meaning of any term where you add '-phobia' to the end of something else (OED:"Forming nouns with the sense ‘fear of-’, ‘aversion to-’) not the first dictionary company to rush it into their latest edition. The onus is on you to establish that Islamophobia doesn't mean what everyone else takes it to mean (as per above), otherwise I'll alter the intro to put it in there. And if you want to include the 'no agreed definition' claim then you'll need some evidence for that which goes beyond two dictionary listings not being word for word identical. That there is a debate abaout usage of the term is very different to whether there is a debate about what the term means. --Coroebus 11:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That is the whole issue. When you're talking about "islamophobia" just being a construction of Islam and -phobia you are demonstrating merely one definition of the term (what you call 'blatant'). When I first started editing on this article I told myself the same thing but after doing proper research I came to understand that there are many definitions of the term. If we were to follow your logic then it would not be blatantly obvious that some are defining "islamophobia" as a "recognised form of racism". To the both of you, please do proper research and cite your sources! (→Netscott) 11:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You really aren't helping here, I just can't see what these alternative definitions are, you certainly haven't provided them, it's all getting a bit Humpty Dumpty, that some people have called it a "recognised form of racism" hasn't got anything to do with it, you are arguing about wider questions, these people still use the term to refer to prejudice against or fear of Islam or Muslims. You've assured us of all these contradictory definitions, and different meaning of the term, but you haven't pointed us in the direction of any actual evidence for this. You try this sort of argument over on SlimVirgin's New anti-Semitism article (where there really is an ambiguity in definition) and see how far that gets you --Coroebus 11:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You aren't helping here. You're just demonstrating your lack of proper research on this topic. Forgive me if I'm mistaken but you seem to be a new editor here when you're talking about User:Slimvirgin's (as though she owned it) article on New anti-Semitism. No one "owns" Misplaced Pages articles/pages. All that needs to be done is for sources to be cited for given definitions and there'll be less edit conflicts. (→Netscott) 11:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I've been here long enough to know that SlimVirgin certainly does own it (but that's by the by). Look, I've been through the first few dozen links in the article, they all define the term roughly the same way (and entirely analogously with homophobia, which was Deuterium's point) - where is this disagreement that my research is supposed to bring up? All this talk of needing cites for definitions is meaningless if there is no disagreement, currently all we have is your assertion that there are disagreements (backed up by nada), and a diff you post from another editor who seems to claim that there are disagreements based on trivial differences in wording (again, as pointed out by Deuterium). So put up or shut up as they say, point me to the dissenting definitions. --Coroebus 11:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Coroebus, you said it much better than I could.

And yeah, the claim that there is 'no agreed definition' needs to be cited, otherwise it's OR and unacceptable. Deuterium 10:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• What's OR is writing the article as though "islamophobia" is clearly defined... it is not... you may think that it is but I assure both of you that it is not. The same cannot be said for the terms "homophobia" and "anti-Semitism". (→Netscott) 10:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You can assure us all you like, but that's meaningless without a cite. You have provide sources to prove that "there is no agree definition" of Islamophobia. Anything else is OR and flies in the face of the fact that the dictionary definitions of Islamophobia are in fact very similar. Deuterium 10:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Look, rather than beligerently arguing, do some actual research on the topic.... you will understand what I am talking about. It is not original research to state the obvious in a given article. Also remember that I did not add that wording but I agree with the editor User:Irishpunktom who did add it. (→Netscott) 10:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Anti islam comments by Netaji

Please check Netaji 's anti islam comments on my talk page. and here. Synopsis- "There is only one kind of Islam. The kind that blows things up" and " I'm not upset about fundamentalism in Islam because there is no fundamentalism in Islam. Islam ITSELF is 'fundamentalist', in the sense of Intolerance, Slaughter, Looting, Arson, Molestation of women, ie I-S-L-A-M." Haphar 20:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)