Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:11, 31 May 2016

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Islamophobia. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Islamophobia at the Reference desk.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Speedy Keep, 13 August 2006, see discussion. Keep, 1 April 2006, see discussion. Keep, 17 Jun 2005, see discussion.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Islam Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: Interfaith Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Discrimination Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Islamophobia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability Shortcut ]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Erik Bleichs research on the use and application of Islamophobia.

Added some conclusive work from Erik Bleich to denote how some scholars have direct definitions of Islamophobia and how some refrain from exactly describing it. Furthermore, how the parallel concepts of homophobia and xenophobia can assist in understanding Islamophobia. Syal01 (talk) 11:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing parallel here. Speaking against religious bigotry is not bigotry, and speaking against religious hate is not hate. Islam is culturally and ideologically intolerant of homosexuals and espouses xenophobia in its religious documents. "Islamophobia" is a weaponized idea used to suppress legitimate criticism of a religion that preaches hatred against non-members. Hitchens was 100% correct when he described Islam as a form of totalitarianism that seeks to turn humanity into slaves. All reasonable and good people everywhere must reject it and the newspeak of "Islamophobia" that it uses to defend its crimes against the human spirit. 107.72.97.61 (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Reminder that this is not a forum to discuss the topic of Islamophobia or your personal beliefs thereof. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Islamophobia in Bollywood

//There are growing instances of Islamophobia in Hindi cinema, or Bollywood, in films such as Aamir (2008), New York (2009) and My Name is Khan (2010), which corresponds to a growing anti-minorities sentiment that followed the resurgence of the Hindu right.//

For real? These films are the very opposite of Islamophobic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.189.22.31 (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Sources? // Liftarn (talk)

I presume the OP has been taking some strong drugs. I havent seen the first two movies, but the third one listed stars a Muslim actor playing a Muslim with the core message that all Muslims are not terrorists. The movie's most famous line is "My name is Khan, and I am not a terrorist". If that is Islamophobia, then I doubt there is any movie on earth that isnt Islamophobia. 101.63.212.87 (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

European Islamophobia Report (EIR)

Whole day long I'm trying to maintain edit concerning EIR, substantiated with proper referencing to reliable sources.

This latest report was presented at European Union parliament on May 6. this year, and was product of work of several dozen prominent intellectuals and academician, researchers and NGO activists from all over Europe. It's here to stay, as relevant, reliable and legitimate entry - if it's relevant and legitimate for European Parliament it must be for English Misplaced Pages - unless someone can wondrously prove otherwise, which I doubt, however I understand massive resistance not only to my edit, but to entire article, all the time.--Santasa99 (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why ppl are referring it as npov, but it is much too large of coverage. I don't think we need it in the lead or have a very large quote. Just a paragraph about its definitions is fine. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Then propose alternative, make it shorter, don't remove it, for Christ sake !--Santasa99 (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

And no, not people, just two passers-by, one of which appears to be troll with multiple warnings on his talk page, on which he never responded.--Santasa99 (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Look, it's such important issue that, actually, makes one of the most important entries in this article. It's report presented in front of European Parliament, for Christ sake, what's more relevant and important then that ?!

Actually, it deserves stand-alone article of its own. I mean, organization deserves its own article. They assemble very large number of intellectuals and academicians from around EU and Europe. They are not some fringe organizations, they are involved with EU government, which, I suppose, can't be more relevant place to work with, on any issue, and on human rights in particular.

This Report is and will be at the pinnacle in the fight against Islamophobia through EU governmental apparatus, and to say it's a minor thing is belittling, to say the least.--Santasa99 (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Chill. There's no deadline here and stop casting aspersions. This needs discussion and consensus at this point, so we're gonna need some other voices here.

The issue I have that there's WP:UNDUE weight on this one topic, bordering on WP:COATRACK. This topic is about Islamophobia, not the EIR. We can and should mention their opinion, but not in 5000 bits worth of it. For reference, this is the edit in question. I say keep the external link and make a European Islamophobia Report section, but not with the tons of fluff it had. Just something like the following:

In 2016, the European Islamophobia Report (EIR) presented the "European Islamophobia Report 2015" at European Parliament which analyzes the "trends in the spread of Islamophobia" in 25 European states in 2015. The EIR considers anti-Muslim racism. The conclude that criticism of Muslims or Islam is not necessarily Islamophobic, but that Islamophobia is the dominant group scapegoating and excluding Muslims for the sake of power.

There's my 2 cents. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

References

1. Feroz, Emran (4 May 2016). "Europe's First Report on Islamophobia Shows the Dangerous Climate Muslims Live In". AlterNet. Retrieved 13 May 2016.
2. ^ "Definition - About European Islamophobia Report (EIR)" (.html). ©2016 European Islamophobia. European Parlament. May 3, 2016. Retrieved 12 May 2016. When talking about Islamophobia, we mean anti-Muslim racism. As Anti-Semitism Studies has shown, the etymological components of a word do not necessarily point to its complete meaning, nor how it is used. Such is also the case with Islamophobia Studies. Islamophobia has become a well known term used in academia as much as in the public sphere. Criticism of Muslims or of the Islamic religion is not necessarily Islamophobic. Islamophobia is about a dominant group of people aiming at seizing, stabilizing and widening their power by means of defining a scapegoat – real or invented – and excluding this scapegoat from the resources/rights/definition of a constructed 'we'. Islamophobia operates by constructing a static 'Muslim' identity, which is attributed in negative terms and generalized for all Muslims. At the same time, Islamophobic images are fluid and vary in different contexts, because Islamophobia tells us more about the Islamophobe than it tells us about the Muslims/Islam.

"I say keep the external link and make a European Islamophobia Report section, but not with the tons of fluff it had. Just something like the following:..."

OK, but lets discuss it further tomorrow, and attune edit with most relevant information.--Santasa99 (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how this is any separate from inclusion of a big section on the Runnymede Trust report. IMO it might be appropriate to condense both these reports down into the definition section or debate about the definition section. I don't think any single report should have a whole section under Etymology. --Tow (talk) 02:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd be fine with combining things. I think this is a great source we can use to bolster the definition of Islamophobia vis-a-vis racism and Islam. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it warrants separate subsection under Etymology or new section where we can provide information on relevant organizations, not for report itself. It should exist such (sub)section which will give condense explanation on what/who the source/organization is, why is relevant, and then separate paragraph under "Reports" (sub)section, which will give reader summarized info on their research and/or report itself.

I already explained my position, but for editor "Tow" I will reiterate it: if the EIR report is good enough for EU parliament, as quite relevant, reliable, and legitimate, then it must be relevant for wikipedia article on Islamophobia.

I can see how huge is the section which tries to provide counterarguments for the phenomenon of Islamophobia itself, yet one meet such a challenge when tries to provide entry on truly important organization and its research, which happened to be the most important act authored and presented at European Union institutions since 2006 and EUMC report "Muslims in the European Union: Discrimination and Islamophobia".

So, don't mind if I have my doubts on some editors motives and reasons. Article is already poorly conceived, and informations are really scarce, not to mention constantly challenged by editors who want it removed completely.

Extent of the problem of Islamophobia, and especially actions in combating phenomenon are underrepresented in the article - for pity's sake, this article completely omitted some of the most important documents and act of countering Islamophobia in Europe, such as main EU institutions like OSCE's "Guidelines for Educators on Countering Intolerance and Discrimination against Muslims", the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights research and reports, etc.

However, I don't mean that article should be buried with informations on every single organization and every single report, but these major governmental organizations, as well as those non-governmental engaged with EU institution (or other western states, respectively), should have been mentioned, briefly explained, and their most relevant and actual research and reports noted.--Santasa99 (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the constant pushing of the obscene comparison to antisemitism, which is highly politically charged. It's especially offensive to European Jews who are "Islamophobic" about muslim antisemitism. --Monochrome_Monitor 16:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

It was obviously a conscious decision to mention three otherwise unnotable people, two politicians and one obscure proffessor of islamic studies, for their "Muslims are the new Jews" crap. Comparisons to religious antisemitism are one thing, but the comparisons to racial antisemitism and nazism are fringe, limited to the far-left (who have their own problem with Jews). --Monochrome_Monitor 16:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, everything that you mentioned is your personal problem, which doesn't influence editing English Misplaced Pages. You can file complaint to your national ombudsman, near place where you live, if you feel threatened in any obvious way.

As far as edit is concerned, I can draw a conclusion that, except been reverted, none of the editors, apart from "EvergreenFir", have suggested alternative. I will make an entry with respect to "EvergreenFir" proposition in the next 24 hours.--Santasa99 (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Not a phobia

Shouldn't it be noted that the term phobia has nothing to do with what is described in the articel?Dislike is not a phobia which is:"An extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something" The dislike of a religion based on the teachings and the doings of practioners of said religion is not irrational.It is in fact very rational and based on facts. 47.71.72.89 (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death (see the archives) and already discussed in the article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

This is also no different than Xenophobia or Homophobia.--67.68.163.254 (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

You are using an etymological fallacy. Turkeys don't actually come from Turkey, but they are called turkeys in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Xenophrenic's blanket reverting

So Xenophrenic has made a blanket revert here with a misleading edit summary where he/she disingenuously inserted uncited weasel words such as "widely criticized", and adding his/her POV: "should be considered problematic". Other changes include modifying "Although the term is widely recognized and used" into "Although the Runnymede Trust has been successful in making the term widely recognized".

Clearly, Xenophrenic, (Personal attack removed) has a problem with this established term. Xenophrenic, you may want to explain your concerns here instead of editing disingenuously? Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Al-Andalusi. I'd like to request that you not personally attack your fellow editors. Thanks.

To address your three concerns: (1) My edit isn't a "blanket revert" (whatever that is), perhaps you should look more closely at it, and the edit summary is fine. (2) The "widely criticized" wording has a citation at the end of the sentence. Please read the many criticisms therein, and explain to me why you feel the wording is not supported, or is in any way more "weasely" than the other dozen instances of that wording in the article. (3) The "should be considered problematic" wording is right from the cited source (see: "should not be considered unproblematic"). I'm interested in how you concluded that was my POV, and not that of the cited source. (4) As for adding "the Runnymede Trust" to the first sentence of that paragraph, that, too, was from the cited source. So please explain here what your concern is with that wording. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Islam-related articles
• Mid-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles
• C-Class Religion articles
• Mid-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• C-Class Discrimination articles
• Mid-importance Discrimination articles
• WikiProject Discrimination articles