Talk:Islamophobia/archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Vote for delete

In light of the deletion of Ameriphobia because it was "hopelessly POV", this article should likewise be deleted to avoid a de facto bias. Otherwise it would be like deleting a pro-abortion page and keeping a pro-life page. I'd like to see arguments why this article should not be deleted when the other article, showing the other side of the debate, should be deleted.

It seems the only criteria around here is the political bias and prejudice of the largely Leftist anti-American Wikipedia admin. Otherwise, why were articles such as "Arab dictatorships" deleted and dozens of pages about US conspiracy theories and historical evils kept? It seems like racism and political prejudice determine what is kept and what is banned from Wikipedia.


NPOV restored

The POV version starts right away with Islam bashing

...Islam is an inherently totalitarian religion that advocates a law code which is barbaric by modern Western standards, and which rejects the values that Westerners hold dear like freedom of religion, equality, and democracy; they therefore view most Muslims with suspicion.

Where is the proof that all Islamophobes are motivated by these reasons? The introductory paragraph is clearly intended to justify Islamophobia. Imagine the article on anti-semitism beginning with this paragraph, "Anti-Semites believe that Israel is killing children, building illegal settlements, and stealing land." Clearly that introduction would not cover all the anti-semites. That kind of introduction would be intended to bash Israel and justify anti-semitism. The POV version suffers from the same problem here. It is purely intended as Islam bashing and to justify Islamophobia. Reverted to NPOV version OneGuy 00:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I wrote the introductory paragraph which you have removed - is it biased to claim that fear of Sharia law is a motivating factor for many Islamophobes? If you thought that my version was POV, check out this version! GCarty 09:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, your version was also anti-Islamic POV like that one. Both versions began with Islam bashing and a justification for Islamophobia. See what I wrote above about anti-Semitism. What kind of Encyclopedia has an article on anti-Semitism that begins with bashing Jews and reasons to justify anti-Semitism? OneGuy 10:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oneguy, the NPOV version start with "Many "Islamophobes" believe that Islam is an inherently totalitarian religion that advocates a law code which is barbaric by modern Western standards, and which rejects the values that Westerners hold dear like freedom of religion, equality, and democracy; they therefore view most Muslims with suspicion." Is doesn't says all "islamophobes" believe that... or that "Islam is.....". Also, the article doesn't make any excuses for islamophobia, it explain what believes "islamophobia" (the title is in itself POV in my opinion) in many cases is motivated by. Wikipedia should not be against islamophobia or the opposite.
That's being an apologist for Islamophobes and is not NPOV. Just like anti-Semitism article should not be turned into bashing Jews and justifying anti-Semitism by Nazi POV pushers, this article should not be turned into Islam bashing by Islamophobes. Besides, the introductory paragraph doesn't describe all Islamophobes. It's specifically designed to bash Islam and justify Islamophobia. This kind of POV pushing should not be allowed on wikipedia OneGuy 19:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the above discussion, of course anti-Islamic POV pushers are going to complain. Anyone who opposes their POV and tries to promote NPOV is "apologist" to them. Every credible source uses the word "Islamophobia" in a negative way. A quote on the US State Department site: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/spbr/40347.htm

like the OSCE now has special rapporteurs on intolerance, three different types -- anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and then other forms of intolerance. And the UN actually has condemned these things, too.

UNGA Declaration Against Racism has a clause:

The World Conference also recognizes with deep concern the existence of Islamophobia and hostile acts and violence against Arabs which are evidenced in various parts of the world. [1]

The POV pushers would instead like to justify Islamophobia (condemned both by the UN and the US government as despicable like racism and anti-Semetism) and bash Islam in the article instead. If you oppose their POV bigotry, you are an "apologist." But I am going to delete and revert any POV I find, no matter how much they dislike me for that OneGuy 11:20, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

By definition you are an Islamic Apologist and a POV pusher. Your contributions, especially the ones 3 months ago is very clear in that regard. You attempt to whitewash anything that you think reflects badly on Islam, regardless of the truth. You have shifted blame to the victims of Muhammad's raids, you have defended Muhammad having "married" and had sex with a 9 year old by calling the victim a liar. You have labeled the Jews of Medina who were killed by Muhammad's warriors as "traitors". You insist that every sura in the Koran that talks of violence is "taken out of context". If that isn't POV pushing and not the work of an Islamic Apologist then I don't know what is. Sure, you claim on your user page that you are athiest, but it's well known that Muslims are allowed to lie about their religion in order to fool the enemy. 168.209.97.34 11:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You just vioated another arbitration ruling by posting personal insults. You will be reported OneGuy 11:43, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You do that. How ironic that you go and call others POV pushers but when someone points the finger back at you then you complain of personal attacks. 168.209.97.34 11:45, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No, you called me a liar above by asserting that I am lying about my religion. That's a personal insult . See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. You violated that, besides violating POV parole OneGuy 11:50, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I never called you a liar. Try reading it again or have someone else explain it to you. I simply truthfully said that Muslims are allowed to lie about their religion. I didn't say you were telling a lie. You sure are getting desperate in your attemps to silence anyone who does not agree with your apologistic views. 168.209.97.34 11:54, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 :-) Implication was a clear.. anyway, I will let that part go. The POV parole is still there OneGuy 11:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Implication was not there. As FoxNews says, "we report, you decide". And why let this go? If you are going to game the system then game it right! Here is your chance to game the management here and have them block this infidel (and the 5,00+ other ppl who use this proxy server) for a week! I must admit you do a good job gaming the system here. You seem to have the management wrapped around your finger. 168.209.97.34 12:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No, I don't have any special skills :)) The rational people examine the evidence and make the right decision. End your personal insults and POV trolling , and you can then "game the system" too. Anyway, this is getting pretty off topic. OneGuy 12:43, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Will you end your POV pushing as well? Quid Pro Quo 168.209.97.34 12:48, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No evidence of POV pushing found by the arbitration. I will stop when they think (like in your case) I was pushing POV OneGuy 12:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That is because the arbcom members didn't bother looking. And I am issuing an appeal against that ruling since the arbcom members refused to respond to my comments. It will catch up with you, you will see. Nobody gets away with things like that forever. 168.209.97.34 12:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Go ahead and appeal. Good luck OneGuy 12:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have tried to rephrase the initial paragraph such that a more neutral POV is achieved.

The link added by Mustafaa to www.islamophobiawatch.org has been restored. Because the reversion by Mustafaa was way out of bounds and unnecessary, it has been nixed.

- Germen

The "West"

Where the current article has ...

It has been argued by some, most notably Edward Said, that the denigration of Islamic civilisation associated with Islamophobia is central to the concept of Western Civilisation. The ousting and marginalising of Islam marks the debut of ***‘Western’ Civilisation*** and, thus, explains the depth and longevity of western Islamophobia:

... please note the quote marks around "Western" and consider their importance. The phrase in asterisks may be rephrased, as I see it, as ***"so-called 'Western,' as distinguished from so-called 'Eastern,' Civilization."***

I believe the most important component of the phenomenon of Islamophobia (with apologies to the Runnymede folks, who are clearly doing their best) is precisely this artificial distinction between West and East, with Islam representing the Other, and securely in the far cultural distance, as opposed to, you know, here. Where the normal people are.

Facts to consider:

  • The last time I checked, Spain was in Europe; in the ninth century, the library at Cordoba contained 500,000 books. Were they Eastern or Western books?
  • Much of the knowledge that fueled Europe's Scientific Revolution was generated by Islamic scientists working in the fields of astronomy, chemistry, optics, mathematics, etc. Were these Eastern or Western advances?
  • The present European (and hence global) number system comes from Islam. So does algebra. Are they Eastern or Western numbers? [2]
  • The National Library of Medicine (a public domain source) writes: "Chaucer ... (names) physicians from the medieval Islamic world: Ibn Sarabiyun or Serapion as he was known to Europe, a Syriac physician of the 9th century; `Razis' the great clinician of the early 10th century; and `Avicen', or Avicenna as other Europeans called him, referring to Ibn Sina whose early 11th-century medical encyclopedia was as important in Europe as it was in the Middle East. Just as early Greek medical teaching served as a common intellectual framework for professional medical practice in the Islamic Near East, so Arabic medical literature of the 9th to 12th centuries, through Latin translations, provided late medieval Europe with ideas and practices from which early modern medicine eventually arose." Is modern medicine an Eastern or Western development? [3]
  • There are today between six and ten million Muslims in the United States. Are they Easterners or Westerners?
  • There are between one and three million Muslims in the United Kingdom. Are they Easterners or Westerners?
  • A huge community of Muslims has been growing steadily in and around Dearborn, Michigan since the early decades of the twentieth century. Are they Easterners or Westerners?
  • The conservative group Muslims for America (formerly Muslims for Bush) [4] is launching a fundraising drive to aid victims of the recent tsunami. Is this an Eastern or Western initiative?

All of this doesn't mean that Greeks weren't great mathematicians, or that Newton wasn't a great scientist, or that Jonas Salk wasn't a great physician, or that George Bush is promoting tolerance toward Muslims. My point is that that human knowledge, inspiration, and cultural advancement doesn't have any problem cross-pollenating between communities, regardless of the labels the residents of those communities may attach to themselves. That was true in ninth-century Spain, and it's true today.

I believe this whole Islam vs. the West thing is itself an example of stark cultural bias, and is in no way neutral.

This trend toward Islam being identified with the Other ... this trend toward Muslims being identified with the East (the Eastern side of Dearborn, Michigan, maybe?) as opposed to the "civilized" West, is nevertheless intensifying with every passing day.

It is fair to ask: Why is this trend so much more noticeable recently, i.e., within the last ten years? Islamophobia predates 9/11, as the article points out.

Could economic and geopolitical pressures related to the scarcity of oil supplies have made it convenient for certain groups to focus obsessively on that which separates Muslims from non-Muslims?

To what degree is the perpetuation of this supposed "East/West" distinction a maninfestation of Islamophobia? And should this issue be addressed in the article? BrandonYusufToropov 13:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The idea of the "otherness" of the West is of course promoted by some Muslim clerics.

Exile 15:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And some Christian preachers. It is, however, inherent neither to Islam nor Christianity. BrandonYusufToropov 15:36, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please address POV points in "The 'West'" above before making major edits, Djames

Thanks. BrandonYusufToropov 15:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yet another request to Djames

Please discuss the issues raised in my note "The 'West'" here on the Talk page

before

editing the text again, okay?

Many thanks. BrandonYusufToropov 16:39, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here is what Djames wrote above in the (only?) response:

"islamophobia" (the title is in itself POV in my opinion)Djames

I cited both the US State Department and the UN. Both have condemned "Islamophobia" as despicable as racism and anti-Semitism, but Djames thinks that the title is POV! How would people feel if a Nazi comes here and claims that the title of the article "anti-Semitism" is POV? And, if the article on ati-Semitism is on wikipedia, it must give equal space to Nazis and anti-Semities to justify their hatred by bashing Jews? This kind of POV nonsense should of course never be tolerated OneGuy 21:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

revert war

Djames and BrandonYusufToropov, be careful to note the three-revert rule which it appears both of you have violated. Djames, I don't see any of your comments on the Talk page and the version to which you keep reverting makes subjective statements (e.g., "Islamophobia is hostility to the religion of Islam and especially to its inherent political dimensions"). The tone in general sounds as if it is coming from an Islamophobe apologist (e.g. putting Islamophobe in quotes in the intro), and is clearly not NPOV. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 17:52, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

BrandonYusufToropov, do not revert more than three times in 24 hours. Djames would have been dealt with for violating 3rv rule. OneGuy 19:45, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My mistake, sorry. BrandonYusufToropov 20:28, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


POV Failure

Both versions of this page have serious POV failures..

During the 1990’s many sociologists and cultural analysts observed a shift in racist ideas from ones based on skin colour to ones based on notions of cultural superiority and otherness.

This sentence prejudges the racism debate, which is a totally stupid debate about what particular meaning we will give the word "racism" rather than any valid meaningful debate. Changing it to say shift in forms of prejudice from would make it NPOV simply. There is no need to put the authors of the paper inline.

The term is typically used to criticize specific people as bigoted toward Muslims. (my bold)

are there any statistics on that, or is that just an assertion?

Islamophobia has been increased in western societies, primarily due to the erroneous' linking of all members of the Muslim faith with the small numbers of violent

primarily? erroneous? No POV here.

Islamophobia has been provoked....

arrggghhh... no predjudging the issue going on here...

Mozzerati 21:51, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

Excellent comments. Even the use of "ironically" in "Ironically, anti-Muslim bias has occasionally been expressed in violent attacks on Sikhs" is a value judgement word that should be eliminated. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 22:13, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Here is one of the problem with the previous version. I cited two sources both compare Islamophobia with racism and anti-Semitism. The US State Department:

like the OSCE now has special rapporteurs on intolerance, three different types -- anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and then other forms of intolerance. And the UN actually has condemned these things, too.[5]

And the UN

The World Conference also recognizes with deep concern the existence of Islamophobia and hostile acts and violence against Arabs which are evidenced in various parts of the world. [6]

The previous version was written by an Islamophobe apologist who (despite the fact that the word "Islamophobe" is used in a negative way by the UN) instead implied that "Islamophobe" just value "democracy and freedom" which is not compatible (in his POV opinion) with Islam. That's an opposite definition of how the UN used the word. In his edit summary, POV pusher Djames gave this reason for revert: Islamophobes "MUST get their case presented." That's like a Nazi (note the US State Department used the word "Islamophobia" in the same sentence as anti-Semitism) saying that Nazis "MUST get their case presented" in anti-Semitism article OneGuy 22:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've implemented NPOV changes to the current version per Mozzerati's suggestions. Whoever added inline author references may want to footnote these instead. There is room in the Criticism section to address objections to the concept of Islamophia; however, it has to be NPOV, i.e., reporting accurately sourced views of what others think, not a personal editorial. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 23:19, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)


Examples of Islamophobia are "out of context"

Why is it that when one quotes from the Koran, even if they give the full reference to the source, that show Islam is a less than peaceful nature then it's called "out of context". Yet on this page there is a huge list of examples on quotes that give examples of Islamophobia. Why the double standard? If the quotes that give examples of Islamophobia is allowed, why can't we give a few violent quotes from the Koran as examples as to WHY some people are Islamophobic? 168.209.97.34 13:06, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gosh! Are you playing games or are you really [serious]? The quotes that you posted were out of context. The context in that case changed the meaning. This is not the case here. These quotes faithfully convey the intended meaning. Adding the next or previous sentence (unlike what you did with Qur'anic verses) do not change the meaning. For anyone interested to see how this user posted out of context verses, please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/168.209.97.34 (the evidence page), and also note to admins who are reading this, this user is on POV parole for one year by arbcom ruling OneGuy 13:17, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You have just made a personal attack. This is violation of the arbitration in which you were asked not to respond with personal attacks. You will be reported. 168.209.97.34 13:21, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Good luck :)) OneGuy 13:24, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

above comment edited by sannse (talk) 13:54, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, Sannse scroll above and see some of his insults regarding me (where he called me a liar) and insulting Muslims and Islam in general OneGuy 13:58, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
First, there was no personal attack by me to you. If there was you would have done your best to get the sysops to block me for it. And, according to Islamic holy scripture, they are allowed to lie to further Allah's cause. I can get the exact quotes for you, but I'm sure you will simply say they are taken out of context!!!
That's just flat out false that Muslims are allowed to lie according their scriptures. You comments regarding me and Islam and Muslims were nothing but offensive slanders. This not unlike a Nazi coming here and posting slanders that Jews are supposed drink blood of children according to their scriptures. You need stop your slanders and personal insults OneGuy 14:13, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Wow, now OneGuy compares me to a Nazi! Surely that is a personal attack as well? 168.209.97.34 14:21, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
no, OneGuy just fell for Godwin's law. It means that the discussion is over. dab (ᛏ) 14:35, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A comment here (as an editor, not as an arbitrator) how about you both stop bickering and go back to talking about the article? If things are getting heated - walk away from the computer for a while and calm down. The "play nice" in my edit comment was directed at both of you. If you feel you have cause, the dispute resolution process is open to you as always. This will be my last comment here for now -- sannse (talk) 14:26, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see. So when OneGuy violates the terms of the arbitration ruling you are no longer an arbitrator and can't do anything but whitewash it? Why were you an arbitrator when ruling against me? Why weren't you on the same side of the fence you are on now? Is this how arbitrators do things? 168.209.97.34 14:31, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
sannse gave you free advice. arbitrators vote on rulings. admins enforce said rulings. sannse just came to this talk page as a regular editor, he didn't even need to explicitly say so. Anyway, no arbcom ruling was violated. Go and take a shower, or a walk in the park. dab (ᛏ) 14:35, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Dbachmann, I complain about personal attacks and you reply with go walk in the park? Such actions are very unprofessional. 168.209.97.34 14:42, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

--Drallas 08:24, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC) Sorry but this article is not objective at all, I prefer RK's version because Islamophobia is not deriving from Xenophobia. It could be but knowledge of the Islam will show people that it’s violent side is what causes Islamophobia. And I prefer to change the word Islamophobia for disgust.

Lines like this cause it Bukhari:V4B52N260 “The Prophet said, ‘If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.’” Bukhari:V9B88N174 “I heard the Prophet saying, ‘Islam cannot change!’” Bukhari:V7B67N427 “The Prophet said, ‘If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath.’”

In other words this is a religion who kills anyone who rejects it, it wont change and it lies to get what it wants.

So it's not always a phobia, but knowledge of the nature of this religion. I have the feeling this article is controlled too much by assuming ignorant socialists…

At least read http://www.prophetofdoom.net , Koran, the Bible, mein Kamph and not only Marx…

I strongly agree, the 'article' is obviously a pile of hopeless POV trash. I think it might make sense to delete the crap, and replace it with a redirect to List of political epithets? Stereotek 15:30, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I dont know how & why people justify their views by quoting prophet of doom . I read like 4 or 5 pages of the book & it was so full of wrong meanings/interpretations & out of context verses that I thought this book isnt worth my time . Better to read some athiest "sane minded" philosopher then him .

Further more he starts by saying I am doing a favour to Quran by correcting its Grammer . I mean he didnt know anything about Quran before 911 & now he is an authority on arabic language ??? This is soooo funy .

For people who dont know , there R many hadith about the same subject that differ with each other . Thatswhy we have scholars to judge which hadidh is strong and which is weak . Its never right to take one hadith & present it as a justification for Islamphobia . 4:45 GMT , March 27 2005 user:Farhansher

  • I knew someone will say this. It is so hopelessly futile to argue with these people. They would never accept the truth, no matter how obvious it is, unless it is all-praise for Islam. If there is something in the Koran which literally corresponds to a positive modern value, they would say: look, the Koran always said this. Our civilization has always been the most liberal and advanced. On the other hand, if there is something that Koran says, even again and again, that literally corresponds to something disgusting, they will start by saying one or more of the following things:
    • This is metaphorical. Don't take it literally. It actually means this(a long fantastic explanation.) This lame excuse will be given for the most plain and factual statements like

"5:72 They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. ... Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden paradise. His abode is the Fire."

    • You are reading an English translation. Obviously it ceases to be the word of God, since it is an interpretation.
    • You don't know anything about the Koran. You are not an authority on the Koran, so you are wrong.
    • Unless you are a Muslim, you cannot understand the Koran, since "you follow your baser self."
    • You are insane.
    • You are conspiring against Islam
    • It's obvious that you suffer from "Islamophobia", why else would you criticize the Koran. (So all criticism of Koran is irrational.)
    • You don't know the Arabic language.
    • You will repent for your actions later on.
    • You will go to Hell.
    • "Allah is blinded you", so you will never be able to see the truth.

It's totally futile. Now that they have taken over Wikipedia, and people are getting blocked for any attempts to make articles less POV, I am seriously considering leaving it before it becomes some kind of Islamopedia. 70.105.188.134 04:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by the above or how it contributes to the neutrality of this section. If you wish to contrubute to making the article less POV please see the call for references below and join in the discussino in a constructive way.
Also, I'm not aware of anyone getting blocked for making an article less POV: the only person I am aware of who got blocked in relation to this page was Germen who was blocked for breaking the rules of Wikipedia (in this case the 3RR) despite a second chance and a warning. The edit war that was started through his/her inability to provide references of full discussions and explanations for her edits which could all have been avoided with a little patience and compromise. Axon 09:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Irrelevant quote

I've commented the following statement in the main article, as it's clearly political and does not show prejudice against Islam in the way that the others do:

  • Rabbi Meir Kahane (1974): "There are no 'moderate' Arabs. There are only clever and less clever, patient and impatient. The final solution for all is the same - the elimination of any Jewish State. And so we repeat: There is no 'Palestine people' and there is no 'Palestine.'"[7]

I've also noticed from this discussion that some people agree with me on this. Thanks, -=vyruss=- 13:40, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

POV edit 5/4/05

regarding:

  • Michael Savage: "I think these people [Arabs and Muslims] need to be forcibly converted to Christianity ... It's the only thing that can probably turn them into human beings." [05/12/03] (on his radio show The Savage Nation)


Savage never said "Arabs and Muslims." One's opionion should not be displayed as fact on wikipedia. He was referring to terrorists that beheaded Nick Berg, and Paul Johnson. In fact, Savage often states that Islam is a peaceful religion except for a very small, but very violent minority.

Jm51 03:37, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

defining what the word means, rather than who uses it.

Currently the article begins with

Islamophobia is term used by Islamic advocates to discredit proponents of criticisms of Islam and Islamic culture.

So, the word doesn't actually mean anything, it's merely a tag to indicate "I'm an Islamic advocate" ?

I'm reverting the first paragraph to what it used to say on 19:04, 13 May 2005. Because I think an article should begin by defining what the word means, rather than who uses it.

--DavidCary 09:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Not at all David, the word is a rhetorical epithet used by the islamic propaganda machine to redefine anyone who criticizes Islamic Culture as irrational and racist. That is the first thing wikireaders needs to know about this word. You would not for instance begin defining the word "nigger" with the propaganda definition of the Klu Klux Klan. (You can probably guess what the KKK definition would be). You would instead begin by saying that it is an racial epithet that is used by certain groups to demean people of the black race.--68.130.206.36 12:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Revised article to try to defuse conflict

I reverted a very POV introduction to the article, and then decided that the previous version was POV in its own way. Since there are apparently at least two sides to the issue, I rewrote the first para to include both sides, and moved the anti-Islamophobia section UP, so that both POVs got approximately equal billing. I hope that this will defuse some of the conflict -- though, given the subject, that's probably a forlorn hope <g>. Zora 02:01, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I shortened the introduction to the part we all agree upon. POV parts have been moved to different sections.

--Germen 13:47, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Disagreement with Yuber

Yuber, you reverted to the old intro to the article, which assumed that Islamophobia was a real phenomenon. But some people assert that it's just a ploy to deflect criticism. That's exactly why I rewrote the intro, so that it didn't take sides. It's possible that one side is true, or that the other is true, or indeed, that they're both true. I know you think you're being NPOV but I assure you that the old intro is subtly biased. You know I'm not one of the Islam-bashers. I'm trying to defuse the conflict, so that the article doesn't get vandalized as often. Zora 00:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I know, but looking at other phobia articles that refer to ethnic and social groups the -phobia ending itself means an irrational hatred of the certain group. There is a criticism of the concept section, a section that is not present on any other phobia article, and that section is sufficient. You can expand that section as much as you like and show how much people think that Islamophobia is a "PC term" and that hatred of all things Muslim is in fact justified. That does not change the original meaning of the term or how it is used today.Yuber(talk) 00:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I looked at the homophobia and negrophobia articles. The homophobia introductory para is abrupt and clunky (probably reflecting a history of angry politicized edits) but it does say up front that there is a controversy. The negrophobia article is much more POV, probably because there's no one participating in Wikipedia right now who'd speak up against African-Americans. I don't think we have any neo-Nazis. So, I think that the controversy re Islamophobia should be right there in the first para.

Maybe my formulation wasn't the best one, but there has to be a way to do it that's going to convince the resident angry Islam-bashers that their POV isn't being relegated to an aside. I'll admit that I personally hold the third view presented in my para, which is that there are Islamophobes (we've seen them), and Muslims who see Islamophobia everywhere, even where it isn't.

The problem with the "phobia" definition is that it tries to turn any criticism into proof of a mental illness in the critic. Hence you get Israel supporters angrily claiming that anyone who objects to anything Israel is doing is an anti-semite, gays suggesting that anyone who has public-health objections to serial unprotected sex in bathhouses is a homophobe, and Muslims suggesting that anyone who disapproves of Islamism is an Islamophobe. It's a concept designed to shut down talk, not encourage it. It seems to me that what Islam and the West need is MORE talk and LESS terrorism and military action. Zora 00:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I removed the word "irrational", perhaps that is what the LGFers had a problem with. If they feel that it is totally rational to hate all Muslims then so be it.Yuber(talk) 00:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


Unprotecting the page

I vote to adopt Zora's version which presents both POVs.--Fredwall 03:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

  • The definition of a a "phobia" is an irrational fear of something. It's POV to have that in the intro. Klonimus 06:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Let me get this straight, Klonimus.
  • The article in question is called Islamophobia.
  • A phobia is, by definition, an irrational fear.
  • But we can't mention that fact in the opening?
  • Please clarify. Is it okay to mention that Islam is a religion in the opening of that article? Or would that be POV?BrandonYusufToropov 11:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Again wikipedia is not about engaging in semantic formalism. I agree with Yuber on the removal of irrational from the lead sentance. It is possible for somone to have a rational fear of Islam or muslims possibly, thought not exclusivly as a result of experiencing Islamic terrorism, or a violent crime commited by a muslim. Claiming that Islamophobia is per se irrational is POV. Klonimus 04:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Respectfully disagree. If it were a rational fear, it would not be a phobia. That's not semantic formalism, it's English, minus the doubletalk. BrandonYusufToropov 09:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    • -phobia simply means "fear of". In psychiatirc usage it means a distressing possibly irrational fear of. Again you are engaging in semantic formalism. Klonimus 04:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Brandon, while I respect your opinion, I still think irrational needs to be removed after looking at other articles such as Anti-Semitism,Anti-Catholicism, and Negrophobia. None of these articles include the world irrational.Yuber(talk) 19:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Bulk removal of references

Farhanikarim, I noticed that you removed a large section of the references section. Can you explain this edit? Kelly Martin 17:47, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Kelly Martin, I removed them because the "references" section and the "see also" section were copied and pasted onto the article twice. I removed only the duplicate versions of the references and the see also sections. Please look for what changes have been made before jumping to conclusions. Farhanikarim

Ah, thanks for the explanation. It's sometimes hard to tell in a large page what's been changed, which is why I asked. Kelly Martin 18:58, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Invasion of India

One reasons of Islamophobia in India is the memories of Islamic invasions carried out in the last millenium. Hence a reference is pertinent.

Revert

I just reverted Germen's edits, and those of the anon immediately preceding. If anyone wants to sort through gems like "As such, it is opposed to islamophilia, the supposed irrational attribution of positive qualities to Islam or muslims", "others attribute the differences in socio-economic position to the cultural isolation in which many Muslims choose to live in", or "violent Islamist movements and the massive support those movements have in the Muslim community" for worthwhile material, you're welcome to look through them...[8]. - Mustafaa 23:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mustafaa's suggestions as far as they increase the information value of the article have been implemented. - Germen

Um, I was being sarcastic in calling those "gems". Those are some of the most egregious sentences in your proposed version. Care to back them up? - Mustafaa 18:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mustafaa's sarcasm had been noted. I corrected those sentences which warranted it. Also I nixed his revert because this decreased information value and promoted a non-neutrral POV. Germen 11 Jun 2005

Why Revert?

I would like to know why these changes were reverted. The topic is "Reasons for Islamophobia" and we are just presenting the typical arguments given by Islamophobes to justify their position. It is clearly stated that those are the reasons given by "Islamophobes" and need not be valid reasons. Also, all the reasons are presented in quotes to highlight that those need not be truths. So, I am not saying X is true, but that "A justifies Islamophobia by asserting X is true." Are you, by any chance trying to hide these arguments from people who might find them reasonable?

See my previous comment for why I reverted - "extensive, massively POV-ridden changes too extensive to sort through." Quite possibly some parts of your edit are neutral and worth keeping, but clearly not all, or even most. - Mustafaa 17:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For the "arguments" section specifically, the problem is claiming that Islamophobes hold all these beliefs. You speak as if there were self-identified Islamophobes defending Islamophobia as a good idea; I can't find any. Even a true Islamophobe like Robert Spencer doesn't acknowledge being one; he just criticises the concept as flawed. We already have a "criticism of the concept" section. - Mustafaa 18:41, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Propaganda Article

This has become more of a propaganda article, where all changes made to make the article more neutral are simply deleted without stating any reasons. It's a extremely POV article hijacked by some brainwashed extremists.

Why not adopt a username, sign your posts, and make your case here for the specific points you feel should be incorporated? BrandonYusufToropov 17:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree in this. I tried to make the article more NPOV and rid it from nonspeak. English is not my mother tongue so stylistic errors can be present in my contributions. Germen

On why it's all POV

Basically this article equates criticism of Islam to Islamophobia, and is highly unbalanced. This article can never be NPOV, simply because the concept of Islamophobia itself is a POV. First, I don't understand why the word "irrational" was removed. Rational fear of Islam cannot be termed as Islamophobia. Whether a fear is rational or irrational can be objectively determined easily in some cases, e.g. acrophobia. In case of Islam, whether a fear is irrational or not is highly subjective. Consequently, the Runnymede Trust definition is POV, since, for example it is POV to say that Islam is not a "monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change ." Moreover, some "Islamophobic" comments like those of Jean-Marie Le Pen are simply hard facts.

Above statement by Deeptrivia. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:53, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

It is perfectly possible to write a NPOV article on Islamophobia. Such an article would probably require there to be a critical section in one of the articles on Islam which is separate from the "Islamophobia" article. The islamophobia article should then focus on the word its self; the phobic fear of Islam (irrational??), probably briefly, how it has been used against critics of Islam and also.

Probably ideally there should be several articles

  • islam which should include a short critical section
  • fear of islam which should discuss the fear of Islam in the world, both rational and irrational
  • islamophobia which should discuss the phenomenon of the word, plus, briefly, phenomenon like the Ann Coulters of the world
  • criticism of islam if, and only if, the critical section of the Islam article becomes more than a short section then it might be reasonable to split it off later.

A good NPOV article will not provide support for a word you don't like. Instead it will just document how it is used. If you think it is being abused and can provide references, then you will probably not be unhappy with such an article. Mozzerati 05:13, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)


Islamophilia

Deletion of a link to Islamophilia by one person shows the extreme degree of intolerance of this Islamic Fundamentalist.

Nothing in the above justifies your edits to the introduction and definition of islamophobia, and POV inclusion of the term "apologists". I have reverted your changes and ask that you participate in the call for references above before making any further changes. Axon 14:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Islamophobia is as POV as is islamophilia. I agree with the argument given by Anonymous. --Germen 15:15, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The anonymous user doesn't give any reasons for the inclusion of said link so I'm not sure what you are referring to here. I also do not see how the use of the term "apologist" is explained by your own remarks. Axon 16:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

VfD template restored

I have restored the subst:vfd notice, which was unilaterally removed by User:Thüringer — five hours before s/he voted on that VfD. The vote for deletion is still active, so the notice must remain. — Dan Johnson 02:31, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)