Talk:Islamophobia/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Playing the Islamophobia Card

The article needs a section comparing playing the Islamophobia card to playing the race card. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.149.170 (talk) 04:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Literal meaning

It should read: Islamophobia (lit. "fear of Islam")... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.139.95 (talk) 23:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant facts

"Muslims have been hospitalized and on one occasion paralyzed." Are you serious? This sentence contributes absolutely nothing to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.66.18.49 (talk) 01:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Alleged....

Calling something Islamophobic is generally an opinion. Wikipedia should not be saying X was an instance of Islamophobia. If we are going to list examples, they have to be examples of notable allegations. We don't say it's true or false that any case really was Islamophobia. That's promoting a POV.Noloop (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think saying something is islamophobic is necessarily a POV. If There are even those who say they themselves are islamophobic.

Just adding "allegedly" gives the implies doubt (see http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alleged) which gives off the idea that it's false. The word was used way too much in the article. This is especially true when there's already something like "aimed at combating Islamophobia", the "aimed" already means it might not work and depends on there actually being Islamophobia. Munci (talk) 11:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Adding "alleged" is necessary, otherwise Wikipedia is calling the things Islamophobic. The 1st meanning of the definition is "asserted but not proved." That's what we want to say. The fact that people might self-identify as Islamophobic doesn't matter. People sometimes self-identify as "bitch," that doesn't mean Wikipedia goes around calling people bitches.
• Regardless of whether the word was "used way too much in this article" that was the consensus version, and you need to get consensus to change it. Claiming that the only cases of "alleged" you removed were the three I added, as you did in the edit commentaries, is a distortion. Noloop (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• But it could give the impression of the second meaning. Because of this, I feel "state" may fit in better. And how are you supposed to prove something's islamophobic? If you're going to used "alleged" with the implication of "asserted but not proved", then there needs to be a way to prove something is islamophobic. I think the comparison to "bitch" doesn't work well since "bitch", unless referring to a female dog, is just an insult. It may have nuances but is not a word ever used in academic literature, in contrast to islamophobic.

• I am sorry if you felt that I implied that the only "alleged"s I was removing were ones you added. I thought saying "new" like I did in "You're the one adding the new "alleged"s" was clear enough. Adding the new "alleged"s require consensus just as much as taking away the old ones does.

• Oops forgot to finish what I was saying above. If...something fits the description at the top of the article, why not call it islamophobic? Munci (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with you, taking away the old "alleged"s requires consensus, so why are you taking them away without consensus?
• Would you accept "perceived" rather than "alleged?" That might better suggest that Wikipedia is not, itself, saying these things are Isalmophobia, but also not casting doubt on the belief. Noloop (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I think we should wait for a third party editor or more than one to come. In the meantime, there are areas of wikipedia we can be editing and other things to do outside of wikipedia. Munci (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi all, if a source is referring to something as Islamophobic then one should consider the source first. In some cases it might be appropriate to refer to some occasion or event as Islamophobic as this is what the reliable texts unanimously refer to it as. In other cases it might be more appropriate to employ attribution if used in accusatory fashion. For example, some acts/views/figures are known to be antisemitic, without need for words like perceived/alleged or attribution. I think having a list of Islamophobic views/acts itself is poor style, and if we could turn it into some sort of concise prose then it would read much better. ITAQALLAH 22:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Itaqallah: if sources are widely in agreement that something was an Islamophobic act, then we can say it was. As for prosifying the list, yes, a good idea, but a pretty hard job! IronDuke 22:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Great. So we publish consent as if it's truth without regard to the possibly spreading libel. I think only the person who commited the act, or a court who deemed so, should be able to identify if the act was based on Islamophobia. Otherwise, you're allowing mass media to label intent. Do you really want a lawsuit? Wikipedia can track who edited what, even with an IP. They aren't going to have your back on this.--Cflare (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. But it's worse. It's just a propaganda term. It's just pathetic that this kind of newspeak is treated seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.22.240 (talk) 10:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is Islamofascism a "controversial neologism" but Islamophobia is just a "neologism"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.145.185 (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The Massive Warning display of Warning Templates

....needs to be exaplained. Where are the particular problems, what solutions do you propose? Noloop (talk) 00:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

India

There shouldn't be any mention of Islamophobia in India. I'm not turning a blind eye to the communal clashesthat have scarred the history of India over the years, but all of them have been politivally motivated. INDIAN HINDUS ARE NOT SCARED OF MUSLIMS the way Americans and some racist Brits are, for heaven's sake, we've been living together ever since Islam was born. The underrepresentation of Muslims in parliament, the police force, the IAS etc. is to do with other sociological factors, primarily poverty, not with ISLAMOPHOBIA. The fact is that while everyone in India is equal in the eyes of the law, it is next to impossible to convict a rich guy because all the evidence and the witnesses mysteriously disappear. This also accounts for the overrepresentation of Muslims in prisons, which incidentally is next to nothing compared to the overrepresenation of blacks in US prisons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.7.88 (talk) 07:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You have a good point here. Being underrepresented in Parliament or Jobs itself is not a reason to accuse Islamophobia. Also communal violence in India or subcontinent is not always Islamophobic. There are complex historical, social and political factors involved. Nevertheless, in recent years, Islamophobia could have been a factor or excuse for many of these discriminations and violences, such as Muslim Bollywood stars facing difficulty in finding houses or apartments in Mumbai or Bangladeshi Muslims being specifically targeted. Normally if Jews in Europe are discriminated in jobs or politics, these acts are called antiSemitic if it was evident that a particular individual or group was targeted becuase of his race. The same criteria could be applied here.

Nevertheless, general backwardness of Muslims in India has not much to do with Islamophobia and we should remove claims put in such a way IMO. Only more specific acts which can be supported by sources may be included - eg: Sachar report writes about Muslims in India facing problems in getting loans from the banks for no other reason than their religion. Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 08:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Acts

The 'Islamophobic acts' section is fully of opinions not acts, hence why I culled them. As the 'Views' section covers all mainstream viewpoints they need not be moved there.

I'll wait a bit before reverting to get other views.

Rsloch (talk) 10:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you give some specific examples? Acts section contains desecration of cemetary, harrassment in subways, airports etc. They are indeed acts and not "opinions". Zencv ^Whisper 11:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The list contains clear Iphobic attacks as you suggest but also events simply because someone has claimed they were Iphobic. Take the racist 2005 Cronulla riots as an example, which is classed as Iphobic because of the opinion of two writers. Also do thinks like Salman Rushdie's knighthood, or Wikipedia's inclusion of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons really become Iphobic because the Iranian Government say so?

Rsloch (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Alleged events such as 2005 Cronulla riots or Rushdie knighthood are formulated as "XYZ alleged that incident ABC was islamophobic". So these sentences already reflect that they are opinion. If you think that having them under "Acts" is problematic, we should think of moving to another section or starting another section. I am not in favour of removing them as these incidents(even if they are allegations) are notable in this article's context. Also I am not amused that you removed Shahrukh Khan's airport incident in USA. The source clearly says that his Muslim name got him into trouble, so it would be possible to include it(among others). Few Islamophobes(bar few Dutch politicians) would openly admit that they are engaging in IPhobic acts when they actually discriminate or instill hatred, so just like many other forms of discrimination, what we are left with is allegations and we have to note these incidents while whenever possible making it clear that it is an allegation. A good parallel would be anti-Semitism related articles in WP like Antisemitic incidents during the Gaza War. Many of these "incidents" are sourced to ADL website(without even hinting that they are allegations in the article). Cheers Zencv ^Whisper 23:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There has to be a standard which events have to reach to warrant inclusion anywhere in the article. Some of the claims (eg Rushdie or religious symbols in French schools) clearly aren't Iphobic and should go. Others (eg Khan) are based on an opinion rather than evidence and inclusion should be based on the credibility of that opinion. On that basis I will remove all of the first category, plus the item about the 2005 Cronulla riots which were racist. I favour removing anything based on the Iranian government, or 'protesters', and polling which by its very nature is opinion.

Let's not hide real prejudice behind propaganda and silliness.

Rsloch (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Incidents on aircraft

There's a mention of Asian's being moved off an aircraft. Should this be South Asia? Asian means different things in different places. South Asian e.g. Pakistani in Britain, East Asian e.g. Chinese here. If ethnicity is significant it should be clarified. 203.25.1.208 (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Is not balanced and makes no reference to the cause of the rational fear i.e. 9/11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.201.104 (talk) 06:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Criticism Section

The last line reads "John Denham has drawn parallels between modern Islamophobia and the antisemitism of the 1930s.[69] So has Maud Olofsson[70] and professor Jan Hjärpe.[71]", which is definitely fine to be in the article, but this is support of the concept, not criticism of it, so it belongs in a different section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.195.165 (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Picture to add to article

Can someone add this picture to the article. It is of an anti islam protest in Switzerland. [[Image:Antifa !!.jpg|right|thumb|260px|Anti-Islamic demonstration in Switzerland in 2006.] --Picture Picture Picture (talk) 06:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Subversion of language in abuse of the term Islamophobia

The intention with the use of the term "Islamophobia" is to suggest that antipathy for Islam is motivated by irrational fear whereas, in the vast majority of cases where it is applied, it is merely a very rational comtempt for Islam that is being expressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.175.116.252 (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Subversion of language in abuse of the term Islamophobia

The intention with the use of the term "Islamophobia" is to suggest that antipathy for Islam is motivated by irrational fear whereas, in the vast majority of cases where it is applied, it is merely a very rational comtempt for Islam that is being expressed.217.175.116.252 (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

All OPINION.

This article is pretty much all opinion. Especially the "examples" section. This kind of biased all-opinion, that can't be proven/disproven, nonsense doesn't belong in an encyclopedia at all.. It's like claiming, say, "there is only one true form of christianity". Such statements are not what an encylopedia is for.. but to give simple facts. Delete the article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.227.176.140 (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I repeat my previous statement here and challenge ANYONE who want to keep this article to verify it's ridiculous claims. After all, there is a rule in wikipedia, and in ALL writing that is to be taken seriously: verifiability. But this article clearly states, among other silly things, that critisism of Islam constitutes "islamophobia".

Seriously.. what the hell is this? This is the kind of thing that makes many people shun wikipedia. That opinons and "cultural sensibilites" are allowed to trump fact, verifiability, and science. What's next? An article about how the world is flat? An article about how all critisism of another ideology/religion constitutes phobia? This is ridiculous.

Assuming good faith gets a little hard when this article in itself is all about assumptions. It ASSUMES that critizism of Islam is phobic and passes this assumption of as a fact. DELETE! 90.227.176.140 (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The assertion that fear of Islam automatically equals fear of all 1.5 billion Muslims is a strange one. Remember that most Muslims have been brainwashed into following it, all their lives in msot cases, and can't be completely blamed for what they believe. This article is generally a load of wet idealist liberal claptrap, in which a lot of perfectly true statements are deemed Islamophobic as a way of shutting down honest discussion of them. By the way relative to <http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Dc7&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&q=anti-Semitism&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= almost four million for anti-Semitism]</ref> calls the notability into question.--MartinUK (talk) 09:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

To MartinUK - There has been no "brainwashing" nor is your statement "cannot be blamed for what they believe" in any means relevant to this talk. All of the major religions have been crusaded on the world, but the fact that there is anything to blame for believing in a religion is false. I hope you understand that and from now on check yourself, that you do not add any content by your POV. This article, in my opinion, is useful, for the fact is, all criticism and "phobia" of Islam has to be of some reason. And psychologically profiling it, there is no way a September 9th attack can create controversy to this point, all psychologists ought to agree. The correct way to name the western intolerance for Islam is hard to find. But Islamophobia might be the right word. After all, the criticism is most likely a result of a POV, and an ignorance to another POV. Due to the internet being a pro-western world creation in the first place, and due to pro-islamic content in the internet, which is not accessible due to my keyboard limitations.

What is this utter nonsense? You're saying that all POV must be based in phobia if it contradicts another POV? Or do you yourself even know what you are saying? The POV here that you seem unable to factor into the equation however, is your own.. YOU CLAIM it's Islamophobia and for you that's all you semm to need to "prove" Islamophobia is real and that all criticism of Islam constitutes it. (And that the west is "anti-Islam") GET REAL! As I said: This is all, 100%, opinion and your statements prove it. 90.227.176.140 (talk) 10:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. This article is a lump of opinionated trash. It ENRAGES me that this is allowed to exist because the world has become so politically correct, but I write a wikipedia article on half shirts/crop tops and it gets insulted and everyone says to pull it because it's opinion! How dare you left wing jerks. Alexandermoir (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

CNN reports "Burn a Quran" event

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/07/29/florida.burn.quran.day/index.html?iref=NS1 RomaC ^TALK 01:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

BBC and "..mophobia" label words

The BBC encourages the use of words like 'islamophobia', or 'homophobia' or 'xenophbia' to label dissenting voices and exclude them from political discourse. The threat of being labelled this way causes people to be afraid of expressing their true opinions. If you think the BBC believes in freedom of expression - think again! (Citizenclive (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC))

Do you have a reliable source for that or are you only soapboxing? // Liftarn (talk)

'xeNOPHOBIA' is not a '-mophobia label word', which I think would be obvious. In the future, you're better off just referring to them as 'phobias'. Either way, xenophobia and homophobia are both legitimate in usage when referring to those with a prejudice against foreigners and homosexuals as a whole. 'Islamophobia', on the other hand, is a term people have started using after realizing they sound stupid calling people 'racist' when they take issue with a religion, or followers of a religion. When one actually looks at things objectively, it's an unnecessary term. Most of the people it's applied to are really just xenophobes (who don't care whether an immigrant from Persia is Muslim or not), or they're overly self-righteous practitioners of another religion. But then on the other hand, there are people the term is unfairly applied to - people whom simply consider the religion itself to be dangerous and oppressive. Someone who hates Muslims is better referred to as a bigot, and someone who hates Islam as a religion and an ideology (assuming they are looking at things objectively, and not from the dogmatic view of another religion) is simply well educated on Islamic doctrine. AllesJetzt (talk) 00:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.99.66.103, 8 September 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Within sub-section 6.2.8 "United States of America" under section 6.2 "Islamophobic Acts", in the paragraph describing the Dove World Outreach Center's anti-Islamic activities, Terry Jones actually used the word "tragical":

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Afghanistan/burn-quran-day-sparks-protests-afghanistan-petraeus-endanger/story?id=11574449

The quotation is in the fourth-to-last paragraph of that article. It's also in the video embedded on the page.

The text should be changed to: ...would be "tragical" [sic] if anyone's life...

Thank you!

71.99.66.103 (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

71.99.66.103 (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"tragical" is a standard English word that is a synonym for tragic; "sic" is not needed. Rjensen (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Amnesty International

I think it would be nice to put a section about Amnesty International and islamophobia, like Spanish version has. 95.120.159.197 (talk) 13:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Offensive

This whole article is offensive to me a muslim and I wish it removed from your site. I also feel it provokes me into recourse against those who not of the book of Mohammad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.92.152 (talk) 05:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Short answer: "Sorry, no."

Long answer: "Wikipedia does not censor it's articles because they are controversial or because someone does not like it. So... the answer is no."

Sorry, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 05:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Grammar

The first line needs revision.

Islamophobia is prejudice against, or hatred or fear of Islam or Muslims. Should read: Islamophobia is prejudice against, hatred or fear of Islam or Muslims.

The use of a comma before a conjunction is superfluous.

 Done, thanks. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 09:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Status of Phobia

{{Edit semi-protected}} I know that for many people viewing this page they are not under the impression that islamophobia is a phobia in the clinical sense. Just the same I think it should be clearly stated in the first three sentences that islamophobia is a political rhetorical term, not is not a clinical phobia as defined by the DSM-IV, the manual that defines psychiatric disorders.

Please insert this sentence after the first.

"Islamophobia is a political rhetorical term, and not the name of a clinical phobia."

and link to the phobia page (I don't know how to do that).

Not done: Thanks, but I'm not convinced that's necessary. The first sentence of the article already defines the word in a very general manner (prejudice against, hatred or fear), and the hatnote says this article is about discrimination. The Definitions section also explicitly states that it's not a phobia in the psychological sense. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 09:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Zionist promotion of Islamophobia - The elephant in the room

Basically, some Zionists have decided that a way to shore up further support in the west for Israel is to stigmatize Islam and Muslims. Islamaphobe leader Pamela Gellar, for instance, is a big time Zionist. Her crusade against Muslims does not stem from mere irrational bigotry but rather is a ruthless political calculation to turn Americans at large against Muslims, the consequence of which she hopes is the U.S forever conflating its interests with those of Israel. Peter King's hearings are likely intended to serve the same purpose. All the hand-wringing about "Islamism" and extremism is intended to stigmatize the Islamic religion and its followers and to keep them out of the mainstream lest Islamic communities become more established and come to effect American policy in the Mideast. Brave Jews like Max Blumenthal have written on this http://maxblumenthal.com/2010/12/the-great-islamophobic-crusade/

I think that this should be included in the article

Followups on Muslim claims of Islamophobia

There should be followups on incidents where Muslims have been attacked or claimed they were attacked. Several incidents have been revealed later to show that it was Muslims themselves who did the attacks to garner sympathy during times when Muslims are talked about in the news. This is especially prevalent after an Islamic Terrorists has attempted or actually carried out a terrorist act. With the media saying there is expected "Anti-Muslim backlash" and there appears to be none, it seems there is political motivation in Muslims creating "incidents" like this. Also people should take care in investigating whether an action was actually due to Islamophobia or some other cause. The August 25, 2010 taxi driver incident is a perfect example. The man accused of doing this act was found out later to be a leftist activist who was involved with the Cordoba Initiative (Ground Zero Mosque). Michael Enright was found to have a serious drinking problem and I believe also allegations of Mental Illness. The fact this happened at the time of heightened news surrounding the Ground Zero Mosque is the only reason this got noticeable attention. There have been several other incidents where Muslims claimed they were attacked only to find out the event was staged by members of their own mosque. In one case, a muslim work place was firebombed, the incident was later discovered to have been done by the owners for insurance money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wri7913 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

ONE citation, out of that entire missive does not a section make! This is Wikipedia, not a ____ wing news organization (fill in the blank as needed). FACTS are reported with citations, not conspiracy theories, save on the conspiracy theory pages. Wzrd1 (talk) 01:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

No Discussion of Doctrine

The article on "Islamophobia" is fundamentally incomplete because it does not mention its origin in theological Doctrine; specifically, the disinterpretation of the Doctrine of "resurrection"; which was taught by Isaiah, Daniel, Jesus and Mohammed as a Doctrine of 'Rebirth' rather than the physical raising of a dead body from the grave.

Of course, this merely echoes the incompleteness of Wikipedia's article on the Doctrine of "resurrection" itself.

Translation: Wikipedia is fundamentally "Islamophobic" in its 'discussion' about both the Doctrine of "resurrection" and the concept of "Islamophobia" itself.(Michael J. Cecil (talk) 10:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)M.Cecil)

I fail to grasp the concept you are relating in consideration of the article. You make mention of things related to a different entry and claim that they belong in this one? What does ONE aspect of a faith have to do with practices of others against that faith, as they've never bee quoted in any source that I am aware of, regarding Islamophobia. Indeed, it's more akin to saying that not mentioning the moon landings on the main article on Islam is anti-American! Totally unrelated topics, no references, no citations and no readily ascertained logic to the complaint. Wzrd1 (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

List of Islamophobic incidents, Norway

A section on Norway should be added and include the 2011 Norway attacks perpetrated by Anders Behring Breivik ("Islamophobia has reached a mass murder level in Norway as the confessed killer claims he sought to combat encroachment by Muslims into his country and Europe."[1], "Oslo Attack Highlights the Dangers of Islamophobia" [2] JonFlaune (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Support. I believe this will have an huge impact on European anti-islamism. Time will tell. Definitively worth mentioning 79.160.234.48 (talk) 02:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Irrational or with reason?

I believe this page needs debate. I suggest the following:

Islamophobia

Islamophobia is the fear of some or all of the religious doctrines and laws of Islam. This may lead to the hatred and fear of Muslims. However it is more complex. A non-Muslim individual, Christian, Catholic, Polytheistic or Atheist may not dislike Islam or Muslims, but because of the increase of Muslim peoples, by immigration and then the number of children they have compared to the “indigenous populations”, in traditionally non-Muslim countries, such as western Europe and North America over the last half century and to the number reverting to that faith, has led to a an estimate that within 80 years Europe will metamorphose into an Islamic state. Anthropological studies have shown that this is a possibility if trends continue. So this Islamification, Islamization, the transformation of a secular society with the freedom of choice it allows, to be for example an Atheist, a non believer of God, to a very conservative religious state, is the fear. It is the fear of waking up in this future and being forced to believe in that faith, or suffer terrible punishment. It is about the fear that there will be no choice for any non-Muslim descendants.

To put this into context and back this up

Punishment for being an Atheist, Non-Muslim, Jew, etc.

Sura 8.37: Of The Qur'an Allah instructs Islamics to heap up a mountain (of corpses) of non believers in order that Allah may separate the impure from the pure. Put all the impure ones (Non-Muslim -- atheists, Jews), one on top of the another in a Heap and cast them into Hell. They will be the ones to have lost.

Sura 4.56: Of The Qur'an (As for) those who disbelieve in our communications, we shall make them enter fire; so oft as their skins are thoroughly burned. We will change them for other skins, that they may taste the chastisement; surely Allah is Mighty, Wise.

Punishment for Apostasy, "abandoning Islam" in Islamic law

The following quotes are from http://www.iranianatheist.com/

At present, apostasy is illegal in most Islamic countries. Although execution of the apostate is not common, it does take place from time-to-time. The punishment of apostasy in Islamic republic of Iran is the death penalty but there is not a specific crime regarding apostasy in the Penal Code

Islamic law does not allow the freedom to choose one's religion:

Sura 2:256: Of The Qur'an “Let there be no compulsion in the religion: Clearly the right path (i.e. Islam) is distinct from the crooked path.”

The Hadith: Sahih al-Bukhari: 9:84:57 “Kill whoever changes his religion.”

Muslim population growth and demographics in Europe

The following quotes are from http://theislamicstandard.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/british-muslim-population-has-grown-to-2-87-million/

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, an influential American think tank estimates that there are now a record 2,869,000 Muslims living in Britain as part of its study of Islam in Europe. This is a massive increase of 74 per cent on the previous known figure of 1,647,000 based on the 2001 census.

The Hadith: Ahmad Hassan: 2:251 Muslims have large families due to a specific command of Muhammad, “God’s final messenger to mankind”, (PBUH) when he said: “Marry the loving and the fertile, for indeed I will try to outnumber (the previous nations) through you on the Day of Resurrection.”

Muslim population 'rising 10 times faster than rest of society' January 30, 2009, Richard Kerbaj, The Sunday Times

The following quotes are from the Article: Muslim Europe: the demographic time bomb transforming our continent by Adrian Michaels for The Telegraph 08 Aug 2009

Europe's Muslim population has more than doubled in the past 30 years and will have doubled again by 2015. In Brussels, the top seven baby boys' names recently were Mohamed, Adam, Rayan, Ayoub, Mehdi, Amine and Hamza.

Mohammed is most popular boy's name in four biggest Dutch cities 13 Aug 2009

A Hungarian economist, Karoly Lorant, wrote a paper for the European Parliament, calculates that Muslims already make up 25 per cent of the population in Marseilles and Rotterdam, 20 per cent in Malmo, 15 per cent in Brussels and Birmingham and 10 per cent in London, Paris and Copenhagen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.19.24 (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Error in wording of the 1997 Runnymede Trust report

The word Islamophobia was defined in the 1997 Runnymede Trust report as 'unfounded hostility towards Islam, and therefore fear or dislike of all or most Muslims'.

Not as in wikipedia item the following

In 1997, the British Runnymede Trust defined Islamophobia as the "dread or hatred of Islam and therefore, to the fear and dislike of all Muslims,"

Itaqallah wrote this back 29 May 2007 11:37 and no one has checked if he was right until now!!!!

Read the report or click these links showing that the wording in wikipedia has been edited, altered incorrectly.

Islamophobia: A new word for an old fear By Imam Dr Abduljalil Sajid http://www.wcrp.be/articles/Sajid9-11-04.htm

http://www.trentham-books.co.uk/acatalog/Trentham_Books_Islamophobia__issues__challenges_and_action_381.html

en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Sebastian_Poulter

The sentence, "dread or hatred of Islam and therefore, to the fear and dislike of all Muslims" is being used in most definitions and is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.189.139 (talk) 10:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Missing news link for incident, wrong wording and gramma

^ "Muslim teenager stabbed during attack on UK mosque". Arabic News. 10/3/2006. Retrieved 2010-04-04.

Link does not exist but BBC has it http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/5398092.stm

A 16-year-old Asian youth was stabbed in the arm and was not seriously injured.

Also error, Jamia Masjid mosque in Preston was attacked by gangs of white youths using brick and concrete block.

Should be "bricks and concrete blocks"

However BBC Item reads, "Bricks and concrete blocks were thrown at cars of people attending the mosque." and "a number of cars were damaged outside the mosque and people who were worshipping inside came out to see what was going on." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceredigion (talk • contribs) 11:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Islamophobia in fiction

Can you include an "Islamophobia in fiction" like the spanish version has? 88.25.162.209 (talk) 12:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Please remove this ridiculous article. There is no such thing as islamophobia: an irrational fear of Islam, a religious ideology that encourages terrorism.

Fear of Islam and it’s terrorism is perfectly rational and justified. Do I need to make a list of Islamic acts of terrorism? Please view a documentary called Fitna. All will be explained in detail and cross referenced with the Islamic holy texts that justify Jihad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.121.188 (talk) 00:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It's fascinating that those who gripe the most about the article and claim that there is no such thing both have three characteristics. They essentially claim to know more than multiple authorities, think tanks and research groups AND they care enough to gripe at great length, provide no evidence to support their claim that there is no such thing as Islamophobia AND they frequently complain, but don't care enough to open a Wikipedia account. In short, they utilize POV to argue against multiple sources that are stated clearly in the article. As for the previous anonymous complaint maker, I am afraid I only have direct, personal experience to dismiss you with, as I've served in this war and I've personally witnessed Muslims serving in our military and Muslims working as translators, who have literally jumped in front of incoming enemy fire, to protect our troops. I HAVE viewed the documentary Fitna, it was a collection of cherrypicked assertions and hyperbole to reinforce the anti-Islamic stance of the Dutch politician who produced it. It would be equally possible to commission a similar film and demonize Christianity or Sikhism or any other faith, cherrypicking what one wishes from their teachings, ignore the entirety, ignore the peaceful and claim all are the evil buggerboo of the week. Personally, I will agree with my intelligence briefings, numerous think tanks, government agencies and disregard your pointed, heated POV. Wzrd1 (talk) 01:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not even a real word. An astroturf phrase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.160.188.73 (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

NOT A REAL WORD OR THING

ISLAMOPHOBIA IS A WORD MADE UP BY THE STUPID POLITICALLY CORRECT ELITE WHO ARE TRYING TO DESTROY WESTERN SOCIETY AND THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE DELETED POST HASTE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.230.77.247 (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If the concept exists and is well-known, we have an article on it, regardless of whether we agree with it. Even if it is a made up word, it is a made up word that is notable. Zazaban (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The concept of political correctness is also very much a part of western culture and society. Thus there cannot be an external political correct elite that is trying to destroy western culture. However, it is true that (just as the case with "new anti-semitism") the concept of islamophobia can be abused to try to stop criticism of Islamic regimes and Islam as a religion. Beta M (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That may be true. But then it's true of anti-Americanism as well. Noloop (talk) 14:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

A totally made up word. This article must be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.160.188.73 (talk) 22:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Every single word is made up. Islamophobia is made up of "Islam", "-o-", and "phobia". Now i do agree that it's a misnomer, because it is not a phobia, in the sense that it is an irrational fear of Islam (it is very rational to fear any religion), but many words are misnomers and they have articles on them ("Pro-Life" movement are not against death penalty, nor support veganism, for example). Therefore, being a misnomer does not necessitate the deletion either. In fact by hiding the discussion about Islamophobia you may inadvertently support the cause of censorship that Political Islamists promote, you should take a fight to them, without the collapse into Nationalism and censorship. Beta M (talk) 02:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead: term controversial and pejorative?

Is it necessary for the lead section to inform that the term is controversial and that some may perceive it as pejorative? Do we have sources for the "pejorative"?

Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 12:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Since we have a large section that discusses the criticism of the concept, I think it is reasonable to alert the reader immediately that the term is controversial. I think that the current rewrite of my change to the lede is inadequate. The term is often used to label anyone who expresses any kind of opposition to the Islamic religion or Islamic culture, which is a totally different thing from prejudice, discrimination, and/or violence against Muslim people. That is the main problem with the term itself, and it should be highlighted right from the start. The current section on criticism of the concept shows this pretty well. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

"Controversial" should be avoided, per WP:LABEL, and the lede already states the term "has not been without controversy". Your re-write did not appear to be based on reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Islamaphobia among Arabs?

Out of curiosity, does Islamaphobia exist among non-Muslim Arabs (e.g. Christian Arabs and Arab Jews? If so then should we note that? 75.61.86.160 (talk) 23:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I would think it does. They could then both be victims and perpetrators of islamophobia. But we need sources. // Liftarn (talk)

new report on this subject

The Center for American Progress has published a report on organized Islamophobia in America. Zero^talk 10:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Harry R:son Svensson

Some people don't want a section[3] that mentions the relationship between islamophobia and antisemitism. In the latest removal the reason given was "1) meaning unclear, 2) relevance unclear 3) unclear why we'd want to cite this individual". 1) What is unclear. Harry R:son Svensson writes that islamophobia and antisemitism are two branches on the same tree. In what way is that unclear? 2) it is relevant since it puts islamophobia in a context. We could of course expand on the parallels between pre-WW2 antisemitism and modern day islamophobia. 3) as a scolar of Jewish history his views carry some weight. // Liftarn (talk)

I'd reverted a similar addition earlier. The main problem is I just can't understand what is meant by the "two branches on the same tree" metaphor. What information is R:son trying to convey? If he's simply pointing out that islamophobia and antisemitism are both forms of prejudice against a cultural group, then I think the disputed content should be incorporated into the earlier paragraph beginning "In a 2007 article in...". If he's trying to say something more specific, what is it? Can't we express it in plain terms? Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 15:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

He's saying that islamophobia and antisemitism are closely related. Like two branches of the same tree. They have the same root. The relationship is closer than just being prejudice against a cultural group. Ideoms are difficult to translate, perhaps something like "two peas in a pod". // Liftarn (talk)

Well, I suppose all prejudices are related in some way or another - perhaps they're all different "branches of the same tree". In any event, if he means what you say, then the claim is trite, and adds no specific knowledge to the article. If he doesn't mean what you say, then the statement is unclear/obscure. More importantly, why would Wikipedia care what Harry R:son Svensson says on the topic? What makes him or his views on this subject notable? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I can see that you have an ideological interest to downplay the relationship between islamophobia and antisemitism, but if a scholar of Jewish history (R:son Svensson has an MA in history and a quick search shows he have several published book on the subject of Jewish history) says the two are closely related (as two branches on the same tree) I think it is notable and it also puts islamophobia in a historical context. // Liftarn (talk)

Your statement began with a personal comment about me, so I didn't bother to read further. Comment on content, not on the contributor. If you have a point to make, feel free to do so without commenting about me. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Another article arguing the same idea, with a detailed analysis of the connection between Islamophobia and anti-Semitism: [4] . Noloop (talk) 03:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's interesting to note that so much of old antisemitic myths are getting reused as islamophobia instead. // Liftarn (talk)

So, you think Daniel Luban writing in Tablet Magazine is a reliable source on the topic? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Svensson does not seem to be notable or particularly reliable on the topic of Islamophobia, and I can't understand what the point of the statement is. I don't see any reason for including it. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

R:son Svensson is indeed both notable and reliable on the subject of Jewish history and it is in that capacity he draws parallels between old antisemitism and modern islamophobia. // Liftarn (talk)

Don't just say he's notable and reliable, explain why. He doesn't meet the requirements of WP:PROF, and he doesn't have any expertise in Islamophobia that I can see. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The official notability requirements are for article subjects, not sources. Sources don't have to be notable in the official sense. However, I agree that some information about the source is needed, for those us who are monolingual. Noloop (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

If an individual is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article, then it's unclear why Wikipedia would want to cite him. As far as I can tell, Svensson does not have an article in any language Wikipedia, even his own native one. Also, what makes him a reliable source on the topic of Islamophobia or Antisemitism? So far no rationale for this has been presented. And finally, the statement itself is still pretty meaningless, so even if he were a world famous expert on the relationship between Islamophobia and Antisemitism, it's highly unlikely we'd want to cite him for this claim. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

That's wrong, and as someone who has been editing for many years, you know perfectly well that it is wrong. Sources are not required to be notable. Noloop (talk) 02:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

"That's wrong"? Most of your comment was about me (not content), you've responded to a very small part of my statement, and, at that, not to what I actually wrote. Perhaps you could be more explicit, and leave out any personal comments. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's wrong. Sources don't have to be notable, and you know it. Quit wasting our time. Noloop (talk) 22:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not what I wrote, and you know it. Quit wasting our time. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

lists of allegations

All this strikes me as an extravaganza of cherry-picking and due weight issues. It's not encyclopedic to publish mere allegation. This article should give an overview, and use carefully chosen allegations as examples to illustrate the views and concerns. Actually, its arguable that this artilce (and anti-semitism) should just be deleted. An encyclopedia describes the notable incidents, and lets the reader interpret. But, I don['t suppose there's any chance of getting such articles deleted, so we have to work with what we've got.

5.2 List of incidents described as "Islamophobic" 5.2.1 Balkans 5.2.2 Canada 5.2.3 Denmark 5.2.4 France 5.2.5 Germany 5.2.6 Nigeria 5.2.7 Norway 5.2.8 United Kingdom 5.2.9 United States of America 5.3 Allegations of Islamophobic views Noloop (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Why on earth you are comparing Antisemitism to this article is beyond me. That one is a very well written and researched article, while this one often reads as a rant by somebody who is upset that others criticise their religion. Even then the article should not be deleted, but we should work towards making it a description of the use of the term in the contemporary western society. Beta M (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The simple answer is that we disagree. For instance, it strikes me as rather odd that this article has a substantial section titled "Criticism of the Concept" while the Antisemitism article makes almost no mention of any criticism of the concept. I'm quite sure there is a rational explanation of that, and it has absolutely nothing to do with, oh say, the Islamophobia of certain editors--and admins. Noloop (talk) 03:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

There are many people in the scientific community criticizing the concept of Islamophobia, but there are very few criticizing the concept of Antisemitism. The latter is much more well defined and still retains its meaning of "hate of the jewish race". Islamophobia on the other hand also includes criticism of Islam as a system of beliefs and practices, making many feel it is weird that it is so stigmatized. MatsT (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Imperfect attribution

This article refers to me in the context of a book I co-authored. However, the author(s) draw only on an interview of me, and so miss the fact that my co-author Gabriel Greenberg should also be attributed in regard to this material. Unfortunately, the article is protected, so I can't make the change myself. I'd be appreciative, on behalf of my colleague, if someone would make the necessary change (I also make a tweak on my title, since this is also outdated). Below please find the changes and the websites that evidence the claims that motivate the changes.

CURRENT TEXT: "As opposed to being a psychological or individualistic phobia, according to associate professor of religion Peter Gottschalk, "Islamophobia" connotes a social anxiety about Islam and Muslims."

EDITED TEXT: "As opposed to being a psychological or individualistic phobia, according to professor of religion Peter Gottschalk and Gabriel Greenberg, "Islamophobia" connotes a social anxiety about Islam and Muslims."

http://pgottschalk.faculty.wesleyan.edu/

http://www.rowmanlittlefield.com/Catalog/SingleBook.shtml?command=Search&db=^DB/CATALOG.db&eqSKUdata=0742552861&thepassedurl=[thepassedurl]

Thanks,

Peter Gottschalk (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

False concept section?

Could we possibly have a section on this article from the opposite side of opinion, that Islamophobia is a false concept because it implies that dislike of Islam is irrational? I mean, I find the list in the section "Constrasting Views of Islam" to be quite biased, because it implies that such views are untrue. I myself was a Muslim and I would say that I would agree with most of the views on that list.

The article shouldn't imply, however, that Islamophobia is a false concept, because opinions differ. But I would like to see both sides of the argument, unbiased. I would contribute to that side myself, if I could be assured that it wouldn't be removed for "racism and bigotry."

Sortsdam (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• I would support adding such a section. It actually goes in line with the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability right now. Is Wikipedia about "the truth" or about stating the views which can be sourced. I'm in the latter camp. Beta M 18:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beta M (talk • contribs)

Misnomer

Many of the examples of Islamophobia is not induced by fear at all. Fear <> hate. I can hate someone for any reason without a need for fear. Also, it's incorrect to compare Antisemitism to Islamophobia. Phobia implies fear, Antisemitism implies hate. Politicized speech has equated hate with fear so to create political shame and have some false target to paint on people. Besides, Islamophobia makes no sense as a constructed word. Are we going to put an o on any word ending with m to describe a phobia now, thanks to the word homophobia. If that isn't evidence of a politically misconstrued word, I don't know what is.

In short, please limit this word to its correct use of phobia - fear. We can disregard the fact that this word is poorly constructed. --Cflare (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps but what's the better/more common word? I see 44,000 gHits for "Anti-Islamism" compared to over 3 million for "Islamophobia". RomaC ^TALK 01:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This article should be split into two: "Prejudice against Islam or Muslims" to neutrally describe the events that this article documents, and "Islamophobia" for the pejorative term, its history, and the controversy. Quigley (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with the split, but not to the term "Prejudice" which implies that a person has pre-judged Islam. What if a person hates Islamic ideology for rational reasons? The term "Islamophobe" would still apply to that person (and that's the problem with the term), but it would definitely not be prejudice. All the atheist public speakers are by definition anti-Islamic, but are not prejudicial... Beta M (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

We have been over this so many times before. Homophobia isn't fear of humans. People with athlete's foot aren't necessarily athletes. Antisemites hate Jews, not all semites... // Liftarn (talk)

It is a rational concern, though. I would support splitting up Homophobia from Heterosexism for example. Beta M (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

All other religious articles are labeled using objective labels, not pejorative ones: Anti-Christian, Anti-Catholicism, Anti-Buddhism, etc. etc. Why should this be the single exception? It is pc and therefore pov. Student7 (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The examples you give is being against the religion. Islamophobia is more like antisemitism. // Liftarn (talk)

No it isn't Islamophobia is one hundred percent based on religion and the culture surrounding it. Antisemitism can be ethnic based or religiously base. You wont find pages on hindu muslims because once a muslim converts they are no longer a muslim. You will however find pages on Muslim Jews because Jews are an ethnicity. There are muslims of every ethnicity not just arab but almost all Jews have at least some semitic origins. Except for converts. Converts consist of less than one percent of Jews.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 14:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually an atheist with a Muslim background can be targeted by islamophobes. As well as people who "look Muslim" and that can be for instance Christians from Lebanon, Sikhs and even Jews as Göran Rosenberg discovered. // Liftarn (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes but they are targeted because they look Muslim not because of their ethnic background. Many people are targeted because they look gay when they arn't but that is still homophobia. The point is that the person attacked them because he percieved them to practice Islam not becuase he believed they were of a Muslim race. Most muslims in the United States are actually African American. Atheists are not targeted because of a muslim background unless they continue to wear clothes associated with Islam. You are really mixing up Anti-Arabism and Islamophobia. Anti-Arabism is a form of racism. Islamophobia is religious discrimination. Antisemitism is both because that Jews are both a racial and religious group.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

They can be targeted because of their religious-cultural background, for instance an atheist with a Muslim sounding name. So in reality they are targeted because of their background, not necessarily their religion as such. // Liftarn (talk) 09:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Antisemitism is a good analogy. The article name is not "Semitephobia! It is npov." Student7 (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

In that article we have the "but Arabs are semites too" people. // Liftarn (talk)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Islamophobia → Anti-Islam – From reading the article's Talk page, for example the sections Misnomer or 'Islamophobia' vs 'Anti-Christian sentiment' , there are a fair number of people who argue that this article is incorrectly titled. Their rationale is that "Anti-Islamism" (or perhaps "Anti-Islam"?) is a more accurate, less specific, clearer and more neutral (NPOV) title. In addition, the current title does not match established naming conventions for similar articles, for example Anti-Christian sentiment (the "sentiment" being included in this case as a disambiguator), Antisemitism, Antireligion, Anti-Catholicism and so on. "Islamophobia" implies a fear of Islam, which is not exactly what this article is about, or at least not the predominant or only topic. The only valid objection to the re-naming that I have found thus far is that "Islamophobia" may be a more widely-used term to differentiate the topic from Criticism of Islam. If no consensus can be reached, perhaps a possible compromise can be suggested (keeping the current title but making the origins of the term more prominent in the article, for example, or changing the title and making "Islamophobia" into a section of the article). MsBatfish (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: there is a term "Islamophobia" which is prominent in political and social discourse these days and therefore needs an article. If some of the content is not suitable, edit it and put it elsewhere. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Articles should be given the most commonly used terms. TFD (talk) 04:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose This has been talked about on the homophobia page over and over again. A phobia is not always a fear but can also mean an aversion to. An aversion means a hatred or opposition. Most of the people who supposedly have a problem with words homophobia transphobia and Islamophobia end up later showing they are actually homophobic, transphobic or Islamophobic anyways.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 05:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Please stick to arguments concerning Wikipedia policy and avoid ad hominum attacks as a way of prejudicing or invalidating others' viewpoints. MsBatfish (talk) 10:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Several discussions have shown no consensus and little support for this. I'll cite an argument I've made earlier: I did a topic search on research papers at ISI Knowledge/Thomson. [For negative sentiments about] Muslims [it returned] 61 [hits] for "anti-muslim", 19 for "islamophobic" and 127 for "islamophobia". The term is dominant in academic discourse. --benjamil (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as islamophobia is the accepted term. Compare with for instance homophobia. // Liftarn (talk) 10:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Just playing devil's advocate here, but the fact that "homophobia" ends with phobia doesn't prove that "Islamophobia" is "the accepted term". MsBatfish (talk) 11:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

True, they are two different arguments. a) islamophobia is the accepted term, b) that it ends with "phobia" is not a valid argument for renaming the article. Also there is a distinction between islamophobia and that you don't like the religion. It's like the difference between antisemitism and criticism of Judaism. // Liftarn (talk)

• Comment: It definitely appears that those in support of the current name are more passionate about this or at least have speedier response, however I disagree that there is consensus (by "no consensus and little support", benjamil, I assume you meant that you feel there is consensus regarding the current name?) - the reason I added this move proposal was because there appeared to be plenty of people who disagreed with the current article name "Islamophobia". Personally I don't have a strong opinion either way, so I figured I would be a good neutral person to propose the potential move. I noticed that people were arguing about this, the page had been renamed and moved and moved back again, so I thought a formal discussion to try to put an end to this matter was warranted. I do think, however, that we should wait some time before closing this discussion until additional interested parties have had their say. MsBatfish (talk) 10:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• By "no consensus and little support" I meant nothing more. There is obviously no consensus either way. But most of the arguments for moving the article begin by stating that the term is a misnomer. In this case, whether true or not, that just isn't a valid argument - the term would be notable just by the merit of its academic and political use. Even if the bulk of the article were to be moved (which I oppose), there should be something left to make this point. For Wikipedia not to have an entry on the concept Islamophobia would in my opinion just be weird. The lead clearly states what the topic of the article is, and the meaning of the term: prejudice against, hatred or irrational fear of Islam or Muslims. In academic discourse the term is the most frequently used to describe these phenomena. In political discourse I believe (to the extent that's relevant) the term is used both to label people who deserve it and abused in efforts to curtail criticism of Islam. The latter fact does not qualify as an argument for disregarding the term's academic use, and is duly covered in the criticism section.--benjamil (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Favor. We should select the most objective name, not the media or politically correct one. This one, unlike the other names for all the other religions, assumes a "phobia" is present for all actions or words directed at it (unlike the others). This is clearly pov and a good reason to avoid media/tabloid words when naming or describing activities. Student7 (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
• Qualified Oppose. I started the section above pointing out the discrepancy between this and the corresponding article for Christianity, but after looking into it further I now agree with seb that as a notable term this needs an article, and that any neutrality issues are probably better addressed by changing Anti-Christian sentiment. However, we need to clearly distinguish the scope of this article from the scope of Persecution of Muslims and Criticism of Islam, in a way that will prevent those articles from slowly drifting towards each other over time. -- LWG ^talk 16:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment The present title (accurate or not) is widley used. "Anti-Islam" does not feel grammatically right. If it is to be changed, it should be to "Anti-Islamism". This would be cognate with Antisemitism, though that is more about hostility to the Jewish nation, rather than to Judaism. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: I've been trying to remain neutral, but looking at all the information at hand, I think I personally agree that "Islamophobia" is the more widely-used term, correct or not, and it's my understanding that articles should generally use the most widely-used term used in reliable sources as their title. See Wikipedia:Article titles.

Peterkingiron, "Anti-Islamism" is too close to "Criticism of Islamism", which is a separate article.

Student7, as much as I'd like to agree with you, unfortunately the Wikipedia guideline is to use the word most often used, not necessarily the most correct or politically correct one. Factors such as the most precise or accurate one or the title that most resembles that of similar articles are only used if there are several different words that are frequently used in reliable sources and one isn't overwhelmingly more common or there isn't a general consensus on which word to use. I don't think that actually applies here. See Wikipedia:Article titles. Let us know if you disagree.

I agree with LWG in that the specific topic of the Islamophobia article should be made very clear and differentiated from Criticism of Islam, Persecution of Muslims and Criticism of Islamism and any overlapping information should be moved to the appropriate article. I think that the hatnote should be amended to include Persecution of Muslims as well. And perhaps the text of each article should make the difference between all of these different topics clearer. We can also include any other words used for Islamophobia, whether in the lead or in a specific section. Does everyone agree that these things would be an ideal compromise? And, if so, who wants to help work on implementing them?

Note: there are also still almost 3 more days for people to share their input before this discussion is formally closed. MsBatfish (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Question. How about moving stuff that isn't clearly phobia to an npov named article? Student7 (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

  Isn't that what Msbatfish just proposed? Several npov-named articles already exist, and if the content that belongs in those articles is moved to those articles, then this article will no longer have a problem. -- LWG ^talk 15:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment While "hits" may be indicative when the article titles are npov, it is hardly productive to use media titles which stretch to annoy people in order to sell space/ads. "Hits" in WP:RS scholarly sources would be more indicative. Because media is pov, doesn't mean that this encyclopedia must be. We strive for the opposite. Reliability. We are not "selling space." Student7 (talk) 14:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whether you're referring to the hits I've mentioned in earlier posts or not, but if that is what you are referring to, I can be a little more precise: The ISI Web of Knowledge returns hits in exactly the type of publication you are advocating. I realise that in practice it's only accessible to people who work at an institution that has bought access, but as academic search engines go, it's at least as good as any other. --benjamil (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I would agree with LWG regarding the need for distinction in terms and their application. There is one clear issue I see, however, with regard to "recent"ism (i.e., incidents alleged to demonstrate Islamophobia as a root cause, for example, denouncing an application to build a mosque as "bringing the battle into our backyards" and "putting our children at risk"). LWG's separation works well for historical timeframes, but the issue with this sort of article is always the portrayal of recent events.

  And while I don't believe we should DIRECTLY cite incidents (as opposed to a scholarly source indicating the same--newspapers are not necessarily reliable except in adding the disclaimer "reported as..."), "phobia" as an irrational (and certainly uninformed) fear is clearly manifested in the example I mention. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

the "recent"-section is already moved out of the article.-- mustihussain  17:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I don't have a problem with clear distinctions. If a move is limited to material in the "Media" and "Trends" sections, I'm not as strongly opposed. A better solution would in my opinion be to rewrite those parts, possibly also including material from the "Criticism" section, to give an overview of the term's use in political discourse. --benjamil (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. At least one of the problems here is the English affinity for the "simplest appearing" term. To say nothing of a preference for exciting words over the dull. There is also a problem of deciding which terms to search for. A single word will turn up more often that a combination of several words.

If I search for "whacko," I get 1,100,000 hits. "Troubled individual" yields 242,000. And please don't tell me to avoid "whacko" for an article title because it is pov. That is what "Islamophobia" is! Student7 (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment- So, trying to wrap things up, can we all agree:

1) There is not enough agreement to warrant re-naming the article?

2) Article-naming is not a precise science and searches for the most frequently-used word or term are not a precise way to determine a title, but we don't really have a better way that most people can agree on? (and the fact that there are obvious exceptions to this method does not prevent the method from being used in general - see What "Ignore all rules" does not mean)

3) We agree that the article should only include information on Islamophobia and that other material is moved to its appropriate article? (we can start a separate section on whether specific content should or shouldn't be included if need be)

What do people think of these conclusions? Will we all be ok with it if this discussion is closed in a day or two? (with the result being no move). Thanks, MsBatfish (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Muslims in America

WP:FORUMChoyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Mainstream Muslims in America have been battling an unfair stigma attached to them, as a result of the tragic events of 9/11. Since September 11, 2001, Muslims have been blamed for the attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and for crashing a plane into a field in Pennsylvania, which resulted in the loss of thousands of innocent lives. Since that day American Muslims have endured incidents of discrimination and harassment, only because they share the same religion. Those living in the Muslim communities have resorted to hiding their true identity in an effort to shield themselves from further harassment. During the 10 years since the attacks, the need to educate ourselves about what it means to be Muslim is becoming more and more evident. While never forgetting the lives lost, the time to move past the pain, to gain some understanding and acceptance is here. The right of religious freedom applies to all people living in the United States, not just for those who choose to practice a religion that the general public decides to respect. Small but encouraging signs are appearing that show that a small minority has already begun to embrace Muslims and those participating in other religions, which is a huge step in the right direction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellyzbox (talk • contribs) 17:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

the criticism section

to user jayjg. this section is extremely chaotic (with the rushdie 2006 manifesto mentioned twice), overly detailed and undue. several sources don't comply with wp:rs and seem to be randomly cherry-picked to suit the pov of critics, who only are a (vocal) minority (e.g. "new humanist", "the brussel journal", "about.com"(!)). unless you want me to flood the section with several hundreds quotes by scholars, professors, and others criticizing this minority, i suggest we prune the section. my version was a clear improvement and should be the basis for further editing. in addition, some material is out of context and highly misleading (e.g. johann hari does not criticize the term itself hence wp:or)... the current version does not comply with wp:rs, wp:due, wp:nor. how on earth was all this allowed to stay in the first place? what we need is a summary using reliable secondary sources, and not dozens of cherry-picked quotes and opinions-- mustihussain  04:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Some of your objections seem reasonable, but others are not (for example, Hari criticizes the concept of Islamophobia), and far too much was removed, or edited so severely that one could no longer tell the reason the critic was criticizing the term (or the concept). Why don't we work through these one at a time, and I'm sure we can prune the section down. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

hari does not reject nor criticize the term ("there is an authentic islamophobia howling in the background. it is the notion that islam is a uniquely evil religion, more inherently war-like and fanatical than christianity or judaism or the other primitive delusions"), rather he criticizes how organizations like "islamophobia watch" uses/misuses the term [5]. as for a start, that has to go, together with the partisan sources i mentioned, in adddition to the duplicate rushdie-stuff.-- mustihussain  04:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

He criticizes misuse of the term. It's definitely criticism relevant to the topic of this article; where would you propose it go? Which "partisan source" did you mean? About.com? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

"the brussels journal" is an islamophobic/racist magazine not suitable for wiki. "new humanist" and "about.com" are not reliable secondary sources either. all these have to go. regarding hari, he is, like you now said, criticizing the misuse of the term. that does not merit inclusion. i bet there are many authors who criticize the misuse of the term "antisemitism" or "racism"....it would be moronic to include these criticisms on the respective pages. in policy terms that constitutes wp:coatrack. this sort of info is suitable on the articles of the criticizers themselves.-- mustihussain  08:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Mustihussain on this. Preferably, articles on "sensitive" topics, such as this, should have rather terse Criticism-sections, in my opinion (note that the article on antisemitism does not have such a section at all, although similar issues are covered elsewhere in the text). The important point here is the criticism involving conflation of different points of view, akin to the common criticism that "anti-semitic" is - somewhat impreciesly put - sometimes used in the sense "critical of Israeli policy". The polemic exchange between Malik and Banglawala is out of place (if there was such an article, it might have fitted in "critical discourse on Islam in Great Britain", but there ain't). --benjamil (talk) 10:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

i don't mind a small summary-like criticism-section built on reliable secondary sources i.e. no quotations, no racist sources, no coatracking and no undue weight.-- mustihussain  10:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I would have liked to go further, but it seems that consensus here might be the last pruned version. Seeing that there's been no further comments the last days, I'm going to revert to that one for now. I there's any opposition to that, I'll be happy to take the discussion further. --benjamil (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, I have been away from this conversation, and missed developments. There actually isn't a consensus for that much pruning, and, while I hadn't heard of The Brussels Journal before, I see no indication that it's "an islamophobic/racist magazine". And there's clearly nothing wrong with New Humanist magazine, "one of the world's oldest continuously published magazines" - I'm restoring the material from them, along with some of the other material that was expurgated for reasons that are at best not clear, and at worst simply because an editor doesn't like the arguments made. I've also copy-edited the material and re-organized some of it. If there's anything in there that editors really believe doesn't come from a source reliable enough to state an opinion, then their next stop is WP:RS/N. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. No problem. Although I do have a beef with The Brussels Journal, the presently cited sources are perfectly ok. My main issue with the current state of the article is that it, in my opinion, mainly displays the controversy about the term and that this is given undue weight in comparison to the rest of the article. Seeing that the criticism/debate section is probably warranted (WP:Criticism) when the term is seen in a political, as opposed to academic, perspective, I will now proceed to reorganize and expand on the article so that its main body treats the content of the term more fully.--benjamil (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

jayjg, according to the wiki-article the brussels journal is accused of being racist by the belgian government and the belgian security agencies want to investigate its relations with a terrorist. even if you disagree with the term "racist", you must acknowledge that this journal is controversial, non-neutral and not reliable. however, i see that you didn't add material from this journal after all, making this a non-issue. my problem with the criticism section was always the undue weight. benjamin has reduced the undue weight by expanding the article. still, the sam harris-quote is undue and i'll summarize his viewpoints instead. i'll defer the issue of his reliability to later.-- mustihussain  17:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

If you think The Brussels Journal is unreliable for the opinion given, then take it to WP:RS/N for discussion. I'm restoring all the material you've expurgated, because there's no legitimate reason for removing it. Please don't do it again, you're violating WP:NPOV and damaging the article. No further material will be removed from this section without prior consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

you did not restore the brussels journal reference yourself[6], [7]... how can i expurgate it when it's not ever there? btw, please take it to the rs/n, you'll lose big time. only thing i did was to rearrange to content and i summarized sam harris' quote into a sentence. if you want the full quote back the burden is now on you.-- mustihussain  06:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Your "re-arranging" of the material served only to remove relevant and reliably sourced material, and obscure and disconnect material that was logically related. You need to start working with other editors, rather than trying to impose your own views - and that includes fully understanding that WP:NPOV requires editors to include material even if they disagree with it. Discuss please, rather than continuing to unilaterally expurgate this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

please, read the two versions first before you start an edit war. the burden is on you.-- mustihussain  07:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I have read the two versions very carefully. The new version you keep trying to impose removes relevant and reliably sourced material, and obscures and disconnects material that is logically related. "Burden" is not really relevant, since you're not even deleting the source itself, just the quote, so you're obviously not stating the source is unreliable. You've reverted 3 times in 12 hours - please don't make it a 4th time, thus insuring that you will be blocked. We need to discuss this. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

what source? please provide a diff.-- mustihussain  07:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

This source, where you remove the quote in which Harris actually explains what he means, and instead misrepresent him as "advocat[ing] a war against Islam". To be frank, that edit alone could get you banned for WP:BLP violation, regardless of your near-3RR violation. If you ever make an edit like that again, I assure you action will be swift. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

err, i removed the "advocating a war against islam"-stuff immediately after [8]... i saw that i had interpreted him wrong due to misreading (he states that the "west is at war with islam"). nice try though.-- mustihussain  07:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

But you didn't stop presenting a straw man version of his argument, which misrepresents his views as well, and is also a WP:BLP violation. Nor did you stop mixing up criticism with unrelated material, and synthesizing various arguments, to the extent that the article no longer had a coherent Criticism section. All of a sudden criticisms of the concept were buried in a section called "Debate on term", which on top of everything else is not even proper English. Oh, and you should also review WP:CLAIM: writing that someone "claims" something because you disagree with him is simply not on. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, I have to be the one taking responsibility when it comes to the "burial". I'm not a native English speaker, and although I'm usually able to write idiomatic English, I obviously fail from time to time. Also, I agree with you when it comes to the criticism-section, but I have some issues about placement, see below. --benjamil (talk) 10:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. I do not agree that the section "debate regarding islamophobia" should be given such a prominent place in the article. However, none of the example articles having separate criticism sections in WP:Criticism give the criticism section such a prominent place as the current version of this article does. History is invariably given precedence. As mentioned earlier, per the template it is probably correct to have a separate criticism section in this article. With the present size of the rest of the article, I do not regard the size of this section as undue. In my opinion, the most logical structure of the criticism section should have subsections dealing with criticism of the term as an analytical tool, the political use of the term and lastly dealing with criticism that rejects the concept. Also, the support section does not seem entirely logical to me. Parts of it (Kofi Annan's speech, Deepa Kumar's statements) relate primarily to the political impact and use of the term - not support of its existence, while the paragraph detailing Edward Said's and Johann Hari's views is part about connections to other ideologies and partly acknowledgement of the existence of the phenomenon, combined with criticism of a specific use of the term. I'll try to restructure the article to address these issues. --benjamil (talk) 09:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with trying to restructure the material to make it flow or group more logically; my issue was that the changes Mustihussain was making did the opposite, and also served to obscure and expurgate the topic, and seriously misrepresented the criticisms of some of the authors. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I notice that there is no criticism section at antisemitism... // Liftarn (talk)

Round 2?

Mustihussain/Altetendekrabbe, rather than trying yet again to unilaterally expurgate the Criticism section, could you explain here why you wish to delete material from it? We had worked out a reasonable compromise above, so it's not clear why you would want to stir the pot again. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

the sam harris' quote is undue, and needs to be pruned.-- altetendekrabbe  20:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

That's what you claimed before, but it's still not true, and there's still no consensus for "pruning" it, since the "pruning" misrepresents his views. In addition, your edits did vastly more than just "prune" the Sami Harris quote. In fact, what they actually did was make the arguments of critics weaker and/or incoherent. This, of course, violates WP:NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

how would you prune the quote?-- altetendekrabbe  20:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Why should it be pruned? I've shortened it now for you, but I don't see why it needs to be any shorter. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

i removed an unsourced line and the blockquotes.-- altetendekrabbe  09:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the "unsourced line" was fully sourced. I've quoted him directly on it instead, because the direct quote captures his views more accurately, and because it's hard to delete direct quotes on the grounds that they are "unsourced". Jayjg ^(talk) 10:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

"apologists for islam" are not necessarily "muslims". hence, it was wp:or, and not "fully sourced". get it?-- altetendekrabbe  10:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I see - because the article used the phrase "Muslims" instead of "apologists for Islam", you deleted the whole point, rather than simply changing the phrase "Muslims" to "apologists for Islam"? Jayjg ^(talk) 10:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and now you've removed the quote entirely, because it's "undue"? Please make up an excuse for expurgating the criticism section, and then stick to it, rather than inventing new reasons with every deletion and revert. Jayjg ^(talk) 10:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

harris is given more weight than he actually deserves. to provide him another line is undue. if you haven't noticed others have made this point about harris as well.-- altetendekrabbe  10:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not "another line", it's the exact same number of lines. There is no consensus that he is given "undue" weight; instead you've just claimed that, because you don't like his arguments. Every time you remove this material, you misrepresent what Harris is saying, and are continually inventing new reasons for doing it, while misrepresenting what you've actually done. You remove all sorts of things, then when asked why, respond as if you only removed some Harris material. You remove material because you claim it is "unsourced" when it is actually sourced, then when challenged, say you removed it because it used the wrong term, then claim you removed it because it's "another line", even though the number of lines is unchanged. If you continue with this game-playing and WP:BLP violation regarding Harris, it will be back to administrative action. Jayjg ^(talk) 10:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

it wasn't fully sourced. and yes, harris is given undue weight as noted by others [9].-- altetendekrabbe  11:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

1. That one-time editor edited a different version of the article that gave Harris a longer quote. He never stated that the later shorter version was UNDUE.
2. Respond fully to the issues raised. Why did you remove all sorts of material, then respond that you were only "pruning" material from Harris? Why did you remove the Harris material under the pretext that it was "unsourced" when it is actually sourced, then when challenged, say you removed it because it used the wrong term, then claim you removed it because it's "another line", even though the number of lines is unchanged? Give complete responses this time. Jayjg ^(talk) 11:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Altetendekrabbe, you have a choice of two quotes. One says Harris states that "there is no such thing as Islamophobia", the other that he has stated that "apologists for Islam have even sought to defend their faith from criticism by inventing a psychological disorder known as 'Islamophobia'." The second is obviously complete and meaningful than the first. What possible reason could you have for reverting to the first quote? Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Could someone explain to me why the quote is undue I think its legit criticism and should be part of article.--Shrike (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

"Islamophobia" vs "Anti-Christian sentiment"?

I have been doing some research on religious persecution of different groups, and I noticed the rather striking discrepancy between these two titles. I also noticed that several editors on the Anti-Christian sentiment article had raised the same question: Why does this article use the more charged and value-laden term, while the other article uses much more neutral language? Looking further, I see that this article uses the language "prejudice, hatred or irrational fear", while in the other article it is merely "opposition". When compared with the rest of the religious persecution articles, both of these seem somewhat off. Any thoughts, opinions, or recommendations? I just thought I'd bring the issue to the attention of the community. -- LWG ^talk 18:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I would posit that the "hatred and irrational fear" portion is more applicable to Islam than Christianity, thus possibly warranting the naming. The perceptions of each are vastly different, even if there are similarities to the topics. Heck, as it is, most people of the Christian or Jewish faiths don't even realize they are worshipping the same god as those who follow Islam do. Thus, as things occur (and/or are influenced by recent events, such as "9-11"), the response is drastically different. No one vehemently opposes a Christian church being near "ground zero" - not quite the same with a Mosque. Thus, to summarize in analogy, I generally do not eat peas or brussel sprouts because I dislike both. There is the similarity. My levels of dislike are vastly different. I abhor brussel sprouts and simply aren't fond of the taste of peas. I could not honestly characterize my dislike for peas as an abhorrence. Anti-Islamic sentiments seem to be a lot more extreme (within the phobia area) than Anti-Christian sentiments. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

That may be true in the US, but globally Christians are harassed and even killed in a large number of countries, far more than Muslims or any other religious group. -- LWG ^talk 00:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Really? I've never seen such. I see claims of such from various religious groups, but never any news that supports that in a large number of countries... unless one considers three or four countries a "large number". Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

As I see it, there are several lines of thought, and a balance must be stricken between them: 1) Taking equal treatment of religions as a principle, the wording in articles referring to prejudices against religions and their followers should be similar in its tone and severity, while 2) the level of aggression aganist different religions and their followers vary widely over time and in different parts of the world, but at the same time 3) the commonly adopted terms describing these prejudices in everyday, political and/or academic context have arisen under different circumstances and therefore differ in tone and etymology, but are nonetheless the terms that are used.

The conflict between 1) and 2) is perhaps the most easy to resolve, by documenting the differences in the level of aggression in the article's main body or linking to articles that list incidents/attacks etc. The conflict between 1) and 3) must essentially be resolved (somewhat unsatisfactory to those with a pedantic slant) by use. Although anti-semitism is a misnomer (semitic covers Arabs, as well as Jews) , islamophobia might sound more like a diagnosis than a characterization of prejudiced opinion and anti-Christian sentiment sounds somewhat feeble in comparison to both, the articles on the phenomena should nonetheless use these terms as long as these are the terms that are commonly used. As long as academics, public and non-governmental organizations use these terms in their papers and policies, it's really not up to Wikipedia to determine whether the terms are good or not. Cheers, --benjamil (talk) 08:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

That's right. There simply is no established term (in English) for... what? *Christianophobia? *Antinazarenism? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the references for Anti-Christian sentiment, "Christianophobia" is used in a good number of them, along with other terms. I don't really see a lot of support for "Anti-Christian sentiment" as a widely accepted term. "Islamophobia" has been gaining a lot of acceptance lately, but it's by no means the only term used. I'm not sure that our hands are really tied to the same degree that they are with "anti-semitism". At the very least, these articles should be differentiated more clearly from the "Persecution of X" articles, and those articles should be moved to the first position in the Freedom of Religion template. In fact, I think I will make that last change now. -- LWG ^talk 14:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I've conveyed the impression that anti-Christian sentiments is the widely accepted term when it comes to persecution of or discrimination against Christians. I don't know whether it is or not. But islamophobia certainly is when it comes to Muslims. The terminology might not be as firmly established as when it comes to anti-semitism. I did a topic search on research papers at ISI Knowledge/Thomson. Taking the three monotheistic religions as a point of origin, for Jews it returned 417 results for "anti-semitic" versus 291 results for "anti-jewish", and ~2528 for "anti-semitism", for Muslims 61 for "anti-muslim", 19 for "islamophobic" and 127 for "islamophobia", and lastly, 108 for "anti-christian" and 0 for both of "christianophobic" and "christianophobia". "Christophobia" occurs once, in the Transylvanian Review.

This obviously carries little weight when assessing the prevalence of these phenomena in the real world, but at least it tells us that when academics write in journals covered by this database on the topic of prejudice against Jews, anti-semitism is by far their preferred topic word, it is used in about 90 % of the articles found. When they write about Muslims, they choose islamophobia-related words about 70 % of the time, and when writing about Christians, they choose "anti-christian" or some other word which has not been mentioned here. The single instance of christophobia does not allow any generalizations, although the fact that the use of both christophobia and christianophobia by the Catholic conference mentioned in the article about anti-Christian sentiment certainly warrants their mention there. --benjamil (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Name of article should be changed and/or material should be moved. If there is any material that is not associated with "regular" anti-Muslim sentiment, and is deemed "phobic," it could be here. But not all anti-anything is completely off-base. There are people who truly think that the pope tells everyone what to do and they follow him mindlessly. But is this "Catholicphobia?" It seems to me that it is normal (in this one case) misinformation. But hardly "phobic." Nor should material that is anti-Muslim be automatically classified "phobic." Student7 (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably most of the editors here would agree with you, but unfortunately most of the available sources for this subject don't. -- LWG ^talk 16:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this move, and even if there was, the move did not preserve the history of the article. I have reverted. Keanu (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

fully agree on that.-- mustihussain  16:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Student7, if you think the article should be moved, please use the WP:RM process. An editor of your experience should also know that cut-and-paste moves are not allowed, as they cause the attribution and edit history to be lost. --NSH001 (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• From reading this and Talk:Islamophobia#Misnomer above, it seems that there are a fair number of people who feel that this article is incorrectly titled. "Anti-Islamism" (or perhaps "Anti-Islam", but not, IMO, "Anti-Muslim", which implies being against Muslim people as opposed to against the religion) is a more correct, more widely-used and a more neutral (NPOV) title. I will propose the article to be renamed and moved at Wikipedia:Requested moves since it is apparently a controversial move. MsBatfish (talk) 03:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I concur. I would suggest "Anti-Islamic sentiment" as a broader, more NPOV category, and then include "Islamophobia" under that heading, and include a redirect. The subsequent discussion on moving below is unclear in terms of the consensus. Just because the term "Islamophobia" may be used in the media today, doesn't mean that it is entirely analogous to Antisemitism. These articles, along with the Criticism of religion articles and associated templates are far from consistent in their treatment.Jemiljan (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

/* Template:Islamophobia */

You might be interested in the debate over at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 December 19#Template:Islamophobia. // Liftarn (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

First sentence

User:ProhibitOnions has re-introduced the statement "Islamophobia is a controversial term" to the first sentence, claiming that is was "No OR at all." Please be aware that WP:SYNTHESIS is a form of OR, too. You need a secondary source that explicitly verifies that it is a controversial term. Drawing conclusions from the sources that criticise the use of the term to the statement that it was controversial, can be subsumed under the definition of synthesis pretty well. --RJFF (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Terms like "controversial" should be avoided in articles, and particularly in the way it was being inserted here (see WP:LABEL). It generally means nothing more than "Wikipedia editor X doesn't like it". Jayjg ^(talk) 22:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 February 2012

==Definition of Islamophobia==
=== Literal Definition of Phobia===

pho·bi·a (fō'bē-ə): A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.

=== According to the Organisation of The Islamic Conference: ===
"Islamophobia signifies the contemporary proliferation of discrimination against Muslims and distortion of Islam and is partly due to the ignorance and lack of understanding of Islam in the West. It would be an unfortunate error in judgment in believing that Islam is linked to terror; that it is intolerant of other religious beliefs, that its values and practices are not democratic; that it favors repression of freedom of expression and undermining human rights."

Baristha (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Presenting those two unrelated thoughts in one section would be an example of synthesis. You may want to edit articles on other subjects if you have an interest in this subject other than improving Wikipedia. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

First sentence

User:ProhibitOnions has re-introduced the statement "Islamophobia is a controversial term" to the first sentence, claiming that is was "No OR at all." Please be aware that WP:SYNTHESIS is a form of OR, too. You need a secondary source that explicitly verifies that it is a controversial term. Drawing conclusions from the sources that criticise the use of the term to the statement that it was controversial, can be subsumed under the definition of synthesis pretty well. --RJFF (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Terms like "controversial" should be avoided in articles, and particularly in the way it was being inserted here (see WP:LABEL). It generally means nothing more than "Wikipedia editor X doesn't like it". Jayjg ^(talk) 22:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 February 2012

==Definition of Islamophobia==
=== Literal Definition of Phobia===

pho·bi·a (fō'bē-ə): A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.

=== According to the Organisation of The Islamic Conference: ===
"Islamophobia signifies the contemporary proliferation of discrimination against Muslims and distortion of Islam and is partly due to the ignorance and lack of understanding of Islam in the West. It would be an unfortunate error in judgment in believing that Islam is linked to terror; that it is intolerant of other religious beliefs, that its values and practices are not democratic; that it favors repression of freedom of expression and undermining human rights."

Baristha (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Presenting those two unrelated thoughts in one section would be an example of synthesis. You may want to edit articles on other subjects if you have an interest in this subject other than improving Wikipedia. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Origin of the popularization of the term

I think we should include as a reference the testimony of american convert Abdur-Rahman Muhammad about what I would call not the invention but the popularization of the islamophobia word and we found out that it was specifically popularized in order to vilify critics of Islam. Muhammad says in this article: "That's the reason why the question of whether America is "Islamophobic" - now bandied about so casually, as though opposition to the mosque has revealed a nasty strain in the American psyche, akin to the terrible racism or anti-Semitism that once ran wild - is so deeply offensive. This loathsome term is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics." http://www.investigativeproject.org/2217/moderate-muslim-speak-out-on-capitol-hill In another article there's his testimony: "In an effort to silence critics of political Islam, advocates needed to come up with terminology that would enable them to portray themselves as victims. Muhammad said he was present when his then- allies, meeting at the offices of the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT) in Northern Virginia years ago, coined the term "Islamophobia." Muhammad said the Islamists decided to emulate the homosexual activists who used the term "homophobia" to silence critics. He said the group meeting at IIIT saw "Islamophobia" as a way to "beat up their critics." http://www.truthbeknown.com/freethought/contributing-writers/63-acharya-s/502-muslim-ex-imam-islamophobia-is-a-loathsome-term.html User BigRoger — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.62.0.112 (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Split

I think that this article should be split (as all the others are) into:"Islamophobia" and "Anti-Islamic sentiment." Similarly (needs to be discussed there), "Anti-Christian sentiment" and "Christianophobia". Into the "phobic" articles would go reliably sourced material that explicitly uses the term(s) "Islamophobia" or "Christianophobia." Or events that qualified, npov psychologists have described as "phobic" to either religion.

It does not make sense to pretend that a pov term is npov. It's like calling US Democrats or UK Labour "Commuunists" and insisting that term is npov. Or having an article "Islamophilia" and prominently listing President Obama!

Using these criteria, splitting can work. Best of all, the split is npov. Student7 (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know which contents you want to split off. This article's subject is solely Islamophobia and its content is only about what has been described as Islamophobia in reliable sources. --RJFF (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Earlier uses of the word "islamophobia"

The article on "islamophobia" mentions that a possible first use of the word (in its french form "islamophobie") is by A. E. Dinet in 1918. In fact, the word "islamophobie" was used as soon as 1910 in Alain Quellien's book "La politique musulmane dans l'Afrique Occidentale Française" (E. Larose, Paris, 1910), and then two years later in M. Delafosse's book "Haut-Sénégal-Niger" (E. Larose, Paris, 1912). http://www.differences-larevue.org/article-islamophobie-dans-la-langue-fran-aise-des-1910-64081190.html

The books have been put on line by the French National Library for everyone to see:

"La politique musulmane dans l'Afrique Occidentale Française" by Alain Quellien (1910): The word "islamophobie" appears on page 133: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6152175h.r=alain+quellien.langFR

"Haut-Senegal-Niger" by M. Delafosse (1912): the word "islamophobie" appears on page 211 and 212: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k103565h

As far as Caroline Fourest's ridiculous assertion that the word was "first used in 1979 by iranian mollahs", it has been widely mocked in France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samia54 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

You need a secondary source that makes this claim before it can be added, otherwise it is original research. Apparently there was an article about this written by Alain Gresh, according to the French Wikipedia. TFD (talk) 23:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I have a secondary source, it is an article by Dahou Ezzerhouni published on "Algerie-Focus" which gives several uses of the word "islamophobie" in the early 20th Century, including the two already mentionned :

"Le mot serait ainsi apparu pour la première fois dans quelques ouvrages du début du XXème siècle. On peut citer entre autre « La politique musulmane dans l’Afrique Occidentale Française » d’Alain Quellien publié en 1910, suivi de quelques citations dans la Revue du Monde Musulman en 1912 et 1918, la Revue du Mercure de France en 1912, « Haut-Sénégal-Niger » de Maurice Delafosse en 1912 et dans le Journal of Theological Studies en 1924." http://www.algerie-focus.com/2010/02/03/lislamophobie-un-racisme-apparu-avec-les-colonisations/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samia54 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I think editors are suggesting that "Islamophobia" is a borrow word from French? The French may have been using it for some time (or not at all) but it never came into English usage until recently. Remember that the French had various Islamic "colonies" in North Africa and a sphere of influence in the near East. It would have been prudent to put down animosity towards the predominate religion, whatever the basis. The English either did not have, or did not take that outlet/path. Student7 (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Earlier occurrences in the modern sense do seem to exist:

• Here is a source first published in 1966 or 1965 that uses the term Islamophobia.
• Here is a 1970 source discussing Soviet Islamophobia and Judaeophobia.
• A UNESCO publication used it in 1981.
• This University of California Press book (a translation from a 1978 French work) used the term in 1985.
• This book, a "collection of papers from the Essex conference, 1976–1984", used the term in 1986.
• A 1987 journal using the term with reference to the USSR.
• In 1990 the terms was used in connection with the USSR in the New Straits Times as well as here.
• Another 1990 book.

A caution: sometimes the publication years Google Books gives are wrong. For example, it claimed on the "About this book" page for a 2010 book containing the term that it was published in 1974, while the copyright notice in the book itself clearly said 2010. Likewise for a book by Bernard Lewis published in 2004, for which Google Books gave a date of 1953. So it's always worth checking the copyright notice, make sure it's not an updated edition with new material added, and probably best to cross-check with Worldcat or get hold of a hardcopy. I've checked all the above ones, and they should be correct. But anyway, this is just apocryphal; I'm not sure that it should be in the article, except perhaps as a footnote. --JN466 06:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Good point and a little digging share that are even earlier appearances of Islamophobia.

While a blog and therefore not RS for wikipedia the BS historian does point you to a google search result for the Journal of theological studies:

"Certain writers in particular are blamed for their ‘ Islamophobia ‘. Mohammed, our authors complain, is called an epileptic, a charlatan, one suffering from hysteria, a socialist obsessed with the idea of an impending judgement. In reality he was a socialiste religieux." (Vol.26, p.102)

A little cross check at the actual website for the Journal of theological studies confirms that Journal of theological studies Vol.26, p.102 was indeed published in 1924. So we can be reasonable confident that the phrase Islamophobia was used in English as early as 1924.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

But even if you traced it back to the Middle Ages, the fact remains that no one commonly used the term until the last decade or so. That is, the average English-speaking person would not have understood the word or why you were using it. That fact should be noted someplace if it isen't. Student7 (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Not only that, but it's unclear what the meaning of the word is in that context. You can't really tell from a snippet view. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This is all original research and therefore inadmissable for the article. How do you know that these authors used the term "in the modern sense"? You need a source that draws this conclusion. See WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". Your source from 1965 does not say that it is using the term in the modern sense. TFD (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Several things here.

• First, the passage in the article in question only states "The term dates back to the late 1980s or early 1990s" not that the term was used in a certain way ie modern sense.

• Second, the referenced work currently used in the article actually states "The word seems to have emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s". In other words the supposedly Verifiable citation is being used to reference something IT DOES NOT ACTUALLY SAY!

• Third, unless you can show the Secretary General is an expert in anthropology or linguistics I don't think he even qualifies per Verifiability.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That statement is clearly incorrect. In addition to the ones mentioned above, two other English language sources that used the term prior to the late 1980s are:

• G.C. Anawat, "Dialogue with Gustave E. Von Grunebaum", International Journal of Middle East Studies, 7.1 (1976), pp. 123-128 ("It is true that what makes the task difficult, perhaps impossible, for a non-Muslim is that he is compelled, under penalty of being accused of Islamophobia, to admire the Koran in its totality and to guard against implying the smallest criticism of the text's literary value.", p. 124);
• A. Christelow, "The Muslim Judge and Municipal Politics in Colonial Algeria and Senegal", Comparative Studies in Society and History, 24.1 (1982), pp. 3-24 ("Islamophobia bred by insecurity tended to be most prevalent along the frontiers of Morocco and Tunisia and in the south, particularly at times of political turmoil - for instance, in the East Constantinois in 1881 during the invasion of Tunisia." (p. 7; other instances on p. 6 and 8). Iblardi (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)