Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Islamophobia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Concluded/old discussions:

Contents

[edit] Rewriting the criticism section

I have an idea. Clearly the criticism section is much trouble, what with its undue weight in the article. How about we try to rewrite that section? MessedRocker (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

What is your suggestion as to how to do this?--SefringleTalk 22:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Get a subpage going and start drafting the rewrite there? MessedRocker (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
that sounds good. ITAQALLAH 10:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
i have commenced work on a new version of the Criticism section which implements a few of the ideas discussed previously, such as removing excess quotes from the prose (moving them to refs where possible), removing repetition of the same arguments, and distilling arguments from both sides by trimming away those points which are slightly extraneous. i also intend to add the only real critique that is given any attention in the scholarly works, and that is Fred Halliday's. ITAQALLAH 20:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why denote the fact that it is criticized in the very first sentence?

One thing which I would like to know is why this concept is so controversial controversy must be stated in the very first sentence.

  • Evolution does not refer to controversy in the first sentence. In fact, it doesn't even mention it until half way down the article where it's given its own section. Like Islamophobia, evolution is a generally accepted concept with a small group of people criticizing it.
  • God does not even make reference to controversies relating to the existence of God. I like how this article handles the criticism: rather than having it stand out, they integrate it into their own sections detailing what the deal is.
  • Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln's first sentence plainly states it is controversial. Why? Because pretty much everyone is debating it. (Also note that this article is neither "Homosexuality of Lincoln" nor "Heterosexuality of Lincoln", so it's not like this article is on a specific position).
  • Allegations of Israeli apartheid - notes that this is controversial in the first sentence, but this is the kind of argument that is heavily heated. If I am not mistaken, there is more or less a consensus on Islamphobia.

Let's use these examples for ideas on how to deal with the article. MessedRocker (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

there is broad acceptance amongst academics and governments vis-a-vis Islamophobia as a topic of sociological study. i believe the extracts provided in previous discussions verify that (even ex-UN Secretary general Kofi Annan used it without reservation), and together with the point that no sources seem to dispute what Islamophobia is supposed to refer to (whether or not that exists), my own stance is that while we can mention some of the most significant criticisms directed against the concept in the lead, but there is no need for mention of it in the opening sentence. the current opening sentence ("Islamophobia is a criticized[1][2] though increasingly accepted[3][4] term that refers to prejudice or discrimination against Islam or Muslims.") is quite poor, and i suggest "Islamophobia is a term that refers to prejudice or discrimination against Islam or Muslims." (1st choice) or "Islamophobia is a neologism defined as prejudice or discrimination against Islam or Muslims." (2nd choice) as its replacement. ITAQALLAH 10:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree to your 1st choice. We should think about a 2nd sentence that adds the criticism. --Raphael1 18:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
i personally think the second sentence should deal with some basic facts about the term i.e. that it was coined by Runnymede in 1997, as well as noting some of the perceptions associated with it (summary of Perceptions/Media section). the second para can deal with the issue of prevalence (summary of Trends section) and the objections that have been raised (summary of Criticism section). ITAQALLAH 13:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Itaqallah's 1st choice, simple and keeps both POVs (controversy and increasing acceptance) out.Bless sins 20:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

<reset>Another issue: All the criticism should be lumped together in one paragraph, instead of being sprinkled randomly all over the lead. Even one of the most heated article, Allegations of Israeli apartheid, follows this by representing the proponents in one paragraph and the opponents in another.Bless sins 20:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

What would be the benefit of dividing it into the pro paragraph and the con paragraph as opposed to listing the different views of a certain theme in one paragraph, and of another theme in another paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Messedrocker (talk • contribs) 21:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
We are writing an encyclopedia article, not a debate. I'd like to restructure Criticism of the Qur'an to fix this problem as well, but that isn't going to happen very quickly. Yahel Guhan 21:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redundancy

What does Criticism of the Qur'an have to do with this?

"listing the different views of a certain theme in one paragraph". That's not the way the lead is structured right now. As of now, one claim is repeatedly made in the lead:
  • "Opponents of the concept argue that it is often misused to undermine legitimate criticism of Islam.[8]"
  • "Malik argues that the concept confuses discrimination against Muslims with criticism of Islam, and is used to silence critics of the religion..."
  • "...Islamophobia a 'wretched concept that confuses criticism of Islam as a religion and stigmatization of those who believe in it.'"

Why do we need to repeat the same thing three times in two different paragraphs of the lead?Bless sins 03:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

What does Criticism of the Qur'an have to do with this? The same thing Allegations of Israeli apartheid has to do with this. Now lets look at the sentences you ignored in the lead, considering you seem to be selectively pointing out sentences.
  • though increasingly accepted[3][4] term that refers to prejudice or discrimination against Islam or Muslims.
  • The term dates back to the late 1980s,[6] but came into common usage after the September 11, 2001 attacks.
  • 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," stating that it also refers to the behavior of excluding Muslims from the "economic, social, and public life of the nation."
  • It includes the perception that Islam has no values in common with other cultures, is inferior to the West, is a violent political ideology rather than a religion, and that discriminatory practices against Muslims are justified
Why do we need to repeat the same thing three times in two different paragraphs of the lead? For the same reason we repeat that Islamophobia is prejudice and discrimination against arabs/muslims three times. Prehaps this is another problem of similar weight which needs to be addressed? Yahel Guhan 04:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, there appears to be some redundancy. A good copyedit is needed. MessedRocker (talk) 10:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
this is a problem that has been highlighted previously, we haven't got round to addressing it yet as we hve been currently discussing other issues. to be honest, i don't see the relevance of the examples Sefringle has pointed out. ITAQALLAH 12:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Re:Yahel Guhan. The first instance is need to establish some context. One can't completely define a subject in the first line, yet the first line does need to establish context. Thus the subject is defined in the third and fourth points. The only thing common about the third and fourth points are the exclusion/discriminatory practices Islamophobia entails. In that you're right. The rest seems fine to me. Ofcourse it can be better written.Bless sins 06:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewriting the article

Most of the problems seem to stem from how the article is written, how it is laid out, etc. What if we were to rewrite the article, paying closer attention to standards? MessedRocker (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

what do you have in mind? complete restructuring of the sections or retaining the sections but making substantial changes to the prose? sorry i haven't been participating in mediation frequently of late, i intend to resume activity soon. ITAQALLAH 21:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Whatever is needed. MessedRocker (talk) 03:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
i would personally liked to have seen a resolution achieved for the lead issue before tackling any other issues, as this is where most of the current discussion has centred. in any case, one large area of contention was the criticism section, i do believe we were planning on rewriting that on a sub-page - i'll get a proposal ready soon. ITAQALLAH 16:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] There's nothing more to say

I suggest that you give re-writing the article to conform to policy a try; unless there are other outstanding issues, I move to close this case. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 07:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

it seems that the new criticism section has been accepted, the excessive use of alleged has been toned down somewhat,. we also seem to have fixed the issue of repetition in the lead. so it looks like most of the areas of dispute have been settled. the only outstanding issue is the use of 'controversial' in the opening sentence, which is still an area of dispute. the article is currently protected, and the talk page discussion concerning the issue has dried up. ITAQALLAH 12:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)