Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamophobia (second nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Netscott 22:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Islamophobia

Article is becoming the defacto "definition" for the term "Islamophobia" which contravenes this section of WP:NOR Netscott 11:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Also see the head of this version of Islamophobia quoted below:

The neologism is disputed. On December 7, 2004 at a U.N. sponsored seminar entitled "Confronting Islamophobia: Education for Tolerance and Understanding”, Ahmed Kamal Aboulmagd, a prominent Ph.D. muslim thinker and former member of the Government of Egypt, described the term as "derogatory" as there was "not only a question of fear, but also a matter of hatred". [1].

Netscott 12:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
As taken from the the Islamophobia talk page:

We as editors are not treading on solid ground working on this article. As the following 6 top online dictionaries would seem to indicate, the term "Islamophobia" hasn't even properly entered into the lexicon of the English language.

1. Cambridge dictionary for "Islamophobia"

2. Merriam Webster's for "Islamophobia"

3. MSN Encarta for "Islamophobia"

4. Newbury House of American English for "Islamophobia"

5. Infoplease for "Islamophobia"

6. Factmonster for "Islamophobia"

Due to this fact there is a strong need to properly surveil what goes into this article for if we do not then this article has the potential to violate Wikipedia:No Original Research and actually become cited for defining what Islamophobia is. This is extremely counter to ethic of WikiPedia. Netscott 23:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll add that the online version of the Oxford English Dictionary doesn't have it either, but only "Islam", "Islamic", "Islamism", "Islamite", "Islamitic", "Islamitish", and ... "island". Nysin 00:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Nothing on Britannica either. In fact, a search for islamophobia definition seems to be pretty much limited to Wikipedia mirrors. jacoplane 01:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opinions

  • Delete as nominator for reasons expressed above. Netscott 11:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep there are plenty of european and international organisations debating islamophobia. Raphael1 11:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - Google uses Wikipedia as a source for an amazingly large amount of info, for example Spring Heeled Jack (my favourite Wikipedia entry), ridiculous reason to remove. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Whether or not the concept actually exists (my view is clearly it does), the fact that a significant number of people believe it exists makes it notable. Editors are working to make the page neutral. The fact that it is top of a Google search should be a source of pride. David | Talk 11:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. My copy of the Oxford Dictionary of English (Copyrighted 2003) happens to include the word Islamophobia. This is a phenomenon that's becoming more and more prevalent these days, and it wouldn't hurt anybody to keep and improve it. - Tangotango 11:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    As for the results from the "6 top" (according to whom?) online dictionaries, note that the Cambridge source cited uses the Advanced Learners' Dictionary, which is an abridged version specifically watered down for ESL learners. Please also see the entry from Dictionary.com. But before we succumb to citing dictionaries, we must realise what Wikipedia is - it's WP:NOT a dictionary, it's an encylopedia, and as such, must include cultural phenomena that many people are familiar with. - Tangotango 11:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    I understand your reservations relative to WP:NOT but do see this section of WP:NOR. Netscott 12:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    Okay... I'm sure if we cited the Oxford Dictionary of English it would no longer be "introducing original ideas", "defining new terms", or "introducing or using neologisms" without citing reputable sources, or, for that matter, doing any kind of original research. - Tangotango 12:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    Tangotango, would you be so kind as to add the verifiable text from your copy of that dictionary to the comments section below or on the talk page for Islamophobia? Netscott 12:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    Sure. Please see the comments section below. - Tangotango 12:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks! Netscott 12:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. This article may contain original research, but you've not argued to my satisfaction that the subject matter is inteherently violating WP:NOR. I've certainly heard this word outside of the context of Wikipedia, and at the very least one hears many crediable allegations of Islamophobia today. Sure, as you say, it's possible that people will add material violating WP:NOR to this article, but deletion isn't the remedy for that. --Deville (Talk) 13:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- O.E.R., as cited, not to mention 'life, the universe, and everything...'; words come into being because there are needs to discuss the underpinnings. The NOR guidelines are not written by all knowing and all powerful beings able to tell the future... The article itself has merit, however it evolves in the crucible of wiki merciless edits. If its missing, it can't evolve——merely remain a private toy. The underpinnings in this matter are clearly present in American society today, if not used in current press accounts or other normal source documents. FrankB 14:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Remove the original research, cite verifiable sources and everything would be fine. --Terence Ong 15:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Terence Ong. youngamerican (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, although I should say that I am personally critical of the use of this term. I will try to contribute to the article and make it less POV. I hope that my contributions will be welcomed. jacoplane 19:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The article was better a couple of years back. What happened to it was that politically motivated Islamophobes succeeded in spamming the article and taking large amounts of well documented research out of the article. There is much material out there on this issue and the fact that some people, for whatever motive, wish to maintain that a very real social/political phenomenon doesn't actually exist is no good reason to delete the article. If anything social commentators are starting to view the term 'Islamophobia' as obsolete, as what we now witness is a full blown form of racism akin to anti-semitism. John Ball 28 March 2006 20:55
  • Delete as neologism. I don't give a rat's patootie whether the concept is hotly debated, I have never heard the term before, and neither have the online dictionaries, seemingly. RGTraynor 20:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite. The term is in common use. But the article needs to make clearer the fact that many critics of the term believe it was brought into use by organizations such as CAIR to label even thoughtful discussion of Islam and its doctrines as racism and xenophobia, thus silencing critics. ProhibitOnions 21:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it must stay, just i watch todays news. Turkey's prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan used that word. But it must be rewritten with NPOV --Ugur Basak 21:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It doesn't matter if it is one or not(and it is in ODE as shown below). Most wikipedia entries won't be found in a dictionary(try chosing a random article and then looking up its title in a dictionary). Islamaphobia is a commonly used term. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shadowoftime (talk • contribs) 04:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, article may need cleanup, but the term is valid and the concept real. Angr (talk • contribs) 08:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above AmiDaniel (Talk) 09:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, common phrase across the media whether it's made it into a paper dictionary yet or not. Vashti 16:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, used in the human rights and anti-prejudice community for many years.--Cberlet 20:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons nominator expressed above. -- BBlackmoor (talk), 2006-03-30 T 06:16 Z
  • Speedy keep Lots of sources say that Islamophobia is valid term and concept (that prejudice against Muslim people exists). RedCrescent 06:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A search of JSTOR and other fulltext databases result in a number of hits on the term. A recent issue of American Ethnologist (Vol. 32, No. 3, Aug., 2005) includes two articles using the word "Islamophobia" in the title (and since the issue seems to be thematic, the others may include it elsewhere in the text - I can't check that). Although perhaps recent, there is no doubt that it is in use in academic discourse. Clearly a valid topic, but the article may need to be guarded against POV changes. u p p l a n d 10:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons shown in RfD nomination introduction. Nysin 13:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 21:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Clearly you haven't seen Wiktionary if you think this is a dicdef. Also see Cambridge search for "Google."] It's not there, should we delete Google (verb)? --Rory096 22:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep, I will support anyone who closes this early, this is a silly and misguided AfD, WP:Snowball. Babajobu 22:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Speedy Keep obviously article worthy. Dev1n 22:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or create Islamophilia article as well. POV magnet. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 09:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • speedy keep; the article has problems. deletion is not a solution. dab (ᛏ) 16:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems valid enough for me. DMighton 19:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep not this again. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but clean up article. Edrigu 15:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep as per all good reasons given above and clean up article. As well, attempts to censor valid information are misguided. SouthernComfort 16:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep this is not a neologism. --Revolución hablar ver 19:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and slap the nominator on the wrist for a WP:POINT violation. Do not nominate articles for deletion as the result of a content dispute. savidan(talk) (e@) 20:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

  • The Oxford Dictionary of English (ODE) (copyrighted 2003), included on my Casio XD-H9200 electronic dictionary says: "Islamophobia > noun [mass noun] a hatred or fear of Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force." - Tangotango 12:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    Tangotango, your comment above "WikiPedia is not a dictionary" is so true... that's why I have such concern to see the terms "Islamophobia" and "definition" come up as the #1 result on Google.com... for the actual word "Islamophobia" neologism Netscott 14:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    It, infamously and thankfully now, comes up first for Jew too - thats not a valid reason to remove. Do you understand how Google works?--Irishpunktom\talk 14:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    An impeccable example of false logic there Irishpunktom, as the term "Jew" has been around for millenia while the term "Islamophobia" is still being defined. Netscott 14:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    Or, you could say "The word is a neologism that has yet to have one clear and explicit definition." - Like it does in the article. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    Netscott, the point is that if you Google "Jew" and "definition", you don't necessarily get a definition of "Jew", you get pages that use the words "Jew" and "definition", including pages that discuss the definition of "Jew". Where the page comes on Google is irrelevant, as long as it the article itself is accurate and doesn't contain OR. JPD (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for that comment JPD, this bit of your statement, "as long as it the article itself is accurate and doesn't contain OR" is key... already some improvement in this direction has taken place... but IMHO, much much more needs to be done. Netscott 16:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    My only caveat to your last argument JPD however would be that the term "Islamophobia" doesn't appear to be commonly found in established and respectable dictionaries... and the term "Jew" most certainly is. Netscott 16:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    That's a fair point, and the article should definitely reflect that fact. However, it is a very widely used term, so there should be enough verifiable material to write a decent article on it. JPD (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    The article as it stands is quite POV; it should be discussed whether "Islamophobia" even exists in any meaningful sense, or whether (as many critics assert) the term has been coined to silence serious discussion of Islamic doctrines, terrorism, etc., by portraying this as racist. Some of the organizations promoting the term, notably CAIR, aren't squeaky-clean. I attended a (country's) government press conference in which foreign concern at a policy changed was described as "motivated by Islamophobia" when serious grounds for opposing it had been put forward. ProhibitOnions 09:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    comment virtually all of googles' definitions are based on google caches of wikipedia articles, occasionally of deleted articles, using that as a basis to delete is... silly, I mean really, type define some random word into google and you'll get wiki links, I mean heck woo, look two or three down, or nup, I didn't even known nup was a word, but look--64.12.116.73 23:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • As for the dictionary debate (on the talk page and transcluded above), I've gone and looked at the individual sites to come up with the following:
    1. Cambridge dictionary
      The online version uses the "Advanced Learner's Dictionary" (ALD). It used to use the full-blown edition, but this was retracted a few years back for a version suitable for ESL learners. As any comparison between a full dictionary and its "learner's" edition will tell you, a learner's edition has various words removed in favour of making the definitions of everyday words easier. It is reasonable to assume that the average ESL learner does not really need to learn the word Islamophobia in the process of learning the English language, hence its non-appearance in the ALD. The Dictionary of American English, also available on the site, is also targeted for ESL users. [2]
    2. Merriam Webster's
      The version cited is from the special "online" dictionary. Collegiate and Unabridged versions are available to subscribers. If anyone does have a subscription, or is willing to try the 14-day trial, it would be interesting to see the results.
    3. MSN Encarta
      I will admit that MSN Encarta uses a recent edition of its dictionary and it is not dumbed down. However, I will also argue that Encarta is also one of Wikipedia's main competitors, and it is rather ironic to quote it, especially when MSN has just launched a wiki-like editing system to its Encarta dictionary.
    4. Newbury House of American English
      "Heinle's Newbury House Dictionaries/The #1 choice for English Language Learners" [3]
    5. Infoplease
      "Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Copyright © 1997, by Random House, Inc., on Infoplease." Assuming that the word Islamophobia saw increased usage after the September 11 attacks, it is reasonable to assume that a dictionary published 4 years before the attacks would not have the word.
    6. Factmonster
      "The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, published by Columbia University Press.; Infoplease Dictionary, based on the Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary" (See #5 for the latter; I could not find out the nature of the Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia)
    7. Britannica.com's dictionary uses Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary. (see #2)
    8. Yahoo.com's dictionary doesn't include the word either, but notice the copyright year: "The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition/Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company." [4] - Tangotango 01:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I checked a few more dictionaries offline. Most of them weren't particularly surprising, given their pre-2001 publication date:
      • Webster's 9th New Collegiate: no. Unabridged was available, but even older.
      • Random House Unabridged, 2nd edition (1998): No.
      • American Heritage Dictionary, 4th edition (2000): No.
    • This one was, however, more surprising, especially in light of the neologism's apparent inclusion in the 2003 electronic Oxford dictionary Tangotango pointed out:
      • The Australian Oxford Dictionary, 2nd edition (2004): No. Nysin 03:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • In the interests of full verifiability, here's a screenshot of the dictionary open on the Islamophobia definition: (see the bottom of New Oxford Dictionary of English for which dictionary I'm talking about)

Image:Islamophobia-ODE-def.jpg - Tangotango 11:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google Summary

Here is Google's summary when searching on the term "Islamophobia".

"Wikipedia encyclopedia article defines the term, summarizes its history, and gives examples. Includes links."

Wikipedia defines the term.... nice.... Netscott 17:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia cited for its definition of the term... another example of Wikipedia's article entry becoming the defacto definition for what the term "Islamophobia" means. Netscott 17:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)