Talk:Islamophobia/Archive 8

Protected

Entertaining edit war, but please sort it out on the talk page. Protected at the request of jacoplane (talk · contribs). - FrancisTyers 10:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I requested that the article be protected, as we're clearly not getting anywhere with this lame edit war. And yes, m:The Wrong Version was protected. So, I suggest we should pause here and decide how to proceed. We could hold a straw poll, or maybe someone else has an idea. Thoughts? jacoplane 11:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather want to know, what are your specific concerns regarding my version of the lead section? -- Karl Meier 11:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok first of, I have objections about the removal of Fortuyn as I outlined above. Secondly, I feel that it is inappropriate the discuss criticism of the concept in the introduction. The criticism belongs in the section devoted to it. Actually I think both versions are not appropriate since the version Raphael1 and others have been reverting to contains weasel words like "Some consider...". jacoplane 11:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I support that Fortuyn should be readded with the source that you just provided. Regarding the criticism, I think it should be mentioned in the lead section to make it as neutral as possible and because the concept has indeed recieved alot criticism. As I understand it, the lead section should be a short summary of the whole article, and the criticism is of course a very important part of this article. Maybe it shouldn't be a direct quote though. -- Karl Meier 11:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that including something like "A number of writers, journalists, and intellectuals say it confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers.[1]" is acceptable. jacoplane 11:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree to that. -- Karl Meier 11:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The current definition (after the weasel words) "fear of Islam, which allegedly leads to hostility toward or prejudice against Muslims" is wrong, because this fear is particularly called Islamophobia, if it leads to hostility. There are many ways to deal with fear. One way would be to examine the reasons for ones fear to find out whether and where it is justified. The islamophobic way is to blindly give in to ones fear and spread sweeping hostility. Raphael1 11:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

So you would say the definition should be something like "a fear of Islam that leads to hostility or prejudice against Muslims". This definition does not imply that everyone who has a fear of Islam is Islamophobic, only those who let that fear lead to hostility or prejudice. Is that correct? jacoplane 11:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Raphael1 11:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That definition is wrong... not every "fear of Islam" leads to hostility... or even prejudice. Netscott 11:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No, that definition does not imply that every fear of Islam leads to hostility. Only that when fear leads to hostility or prejudice, one can speak of Islamophobia. jacoplane 11:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well that's the whole point Jacoplane, if a person goes by the history of the term "Islamophobia" as spelled out later in the article it is composed of "Islam" and "phobia". Have you looked up -phobia? There's no mention of hostility there. This definition thereby constitues a contradiction in terms. Netscott 11:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

However, that is how the terms is being used in the mainstream press. And it has also been criticised for it, something that is explained at some length in the article. jacoplane 11:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

While the term may be used that way in the press I'm inclined to say that this is due to a lack of understanding of the terminology of the word. WikiPedia shouldn't be spreading an erroneous use of terminology by blanket definition but should be clear who are the parties spreading this erroneous usage. Have you seen this article? Netscott 11:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion that is a valid criticism that should be included in the article. Wikipedia should document usage of the word as it is done by others. If that usage is criticised, we will document that as well. There are a lot of words that don't really make literal sense. It is arguable that since Arabic is a semitic language, the terminology anti-semitism doesn't really make sense either. However, it is used to describe violence and prejudice against Jews, so that is how the Wikipedia article defines it. jacoplane 11:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Jacoplane, I agree about the term "anti-semitism" but that was an error that was committed long ago while the use of that term was still being defined and what's done is done... "Islamophobia" is currently being defined and there's no reason that the same type of mistake need occur twice. In the intro the wording should say "Islamophobia as being defined by (two or more of the parties doing the defining) is etc. etc." so that responsibility for the definition is properly assigned. Netscott 12:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

If you think there is a mistake in the anti-semitism article, please correct it there. IMHO it's a mistake, if wikipedia newly defines words by literal translations. Wikipedia should define words according to their general usage and not by literal translations. Raphael1 13:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Raphael1 your statement couldn't be more wrong if it tried. WikiPedia SHOULD NOT be defining words. Where have you been? That's the whole point of talk for the last week or so. For WikiPedia to define words is counter to WP:NOR rules against Original Research. Netscott 18:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, Raphael1 was not saying we should just make up some random definition, but that the definition we include should reflect how the term is used in "general usage", i.e. the mainstream media. At least, that is how I read his comments. Anyway, try to stay calm and civil. jacoplane 18:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

A more general comment arising from Raphael1's frequent references to the antisemitism article: it doesn't matter if that article states something. Most of the objections to your edits I've seen here are stated independently from other Wikipedia articles, and as such can and should be responded to as such. You appear to be aiming for some exact correspondence, which is a goal in the abstract I'm not sure I have a problem with (though, I've not thought about it much either, and there is the *-phobia vs anti-* asymmetry that bothers me some); however, this doesn't render items and claims in this article acceptable according to Wikipedia guidelines when they otherwise wouldn't be. If you feel that antisemitism operates on looser standards than some here would like to impose, feel free to edit that article. That's not, though, an argument for allowing such laxness here. As it is, I don't remember a single worthwhile comment from you in which you mention that article. Nysin 18:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who brought up the anti-semitism article. I don't really see how your comment is helping this discussion. jacoplane 18:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

"If you remove them, please don't forget to remove all "synagoge burning" and "swastika paintings on jewish graves" from the anti-semitism article too." was most proximately what I had in mind, actually - I don't disagree with the point you're making about antisemitism's being inaccurate too in the way that many are arguing Islamophobia is. Search for 'semitism' or such though, and one will notice most of them are from Raphael1, and many try to essentially argue that "Article X says Y, so article Z must act similarly." Granted, it was defensibly pointlessly argumentative, but given that Raphael1 is still doing it, and has for the last week and a half at least, I think it's worth commenting on. Nysin 22:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Anti-semitism and Islamophobia are indeed too similar not to compare them at one point. Both are racisms against a religion. There have been suggestions to use anti-islamism instead, but islamism is already a very loaded difficult to define word, and anti-islamism could easily be used conducively. Raphael1 23:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Due to the neologistic nature of the term "Islamophobia", any definition included in this article needs to spell out the source for that definition otherwise the definition just becomes a perfect example of original research. Netscott 18:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Problems with the wrong version

There shouldn't be criticism of the term in the lead, or if there is, it shouldn't take the form of a quotation. The external links section is too big. What the hell is with the alleged examples, drop it, find real examples. Why does the criticism section have to be a long list of quotes by talking heads? Those are my gut reactions, if both sides wish I'll do a more thorough job, but otherwise I'll let you guys get on with it. :) - FrancisTyers 11:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Some people say that islamophobia is a misnomer, that it does not exist, so, any reference to it can, to be NPOV, only an allegation. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Then call it something like "People who have been described as Islamophobic". Alleged smacks of biased wording. - FrancisTyers 11:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

There have been many variations on that theme throughout the history of the article, but, if you want to change it to that I would have no objections. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

FrancisTyers, I have been trying to make that point myself. Not only should the wording your suggesting be adopted but the actual people who've done such characterizations should be specified in the article. For this article to blanket refer to "Possible/Alleged examples of Islamophobia" truly reaks of original research POV. Netscott 11:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Additionally the fact that the term "Islamophobia" is a neologism should be the first part of the article. Netscott 11:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The first four words of either version read "Islamophobia is a neologism" - what are to trying to say ? --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

My comments do not specifically refer to these two versions.... but several versions that have come and gone. The intro wording should reflect what bodies are defining the term as well... Netscott 11:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Weasel word sentence

Can everyone agree that the sentence "Some consider these feelings to be the product of ignorance, irrationality, or mere prejudice; others claim that they are wholly or partly justified. The term is used variously and the existence of the phenomenon is disputed." is full of weasel words and is therefore not acceptable for use in the article. I propose that "A number of writers, journalists, and intellectuals say it confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers.[2]" and "The word is a neologism that has yet to have one clear and explicit definition." is enough critical information for the introduction. We might consider using the definition from the Oxford Dictionary of English. jacoplane 13:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I support your weasel word reduction, but I don't prefer the Oxford definition, since it completely leaves out the literal translation (fear). Raphael1 13:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you cite a definition you do prefer? Nysin 14:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the definition, we agreed to here. Raphael1 14:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I presume you're referring to "Islamophobia refers to a fear of Islam which leads to hostility toward or prejudice against Muslims as a religious, ethnic or racial group. The word is a neologism that has yet to have one clear and explicit definition. The effects of Islamophobia range from individual hatred to institutionalized, violent persecution". I have one caveat with this: can you identify one specific case of "institutionalized, violent persecution"? The only institutionalized incident that has been in the article (which was not violent) is the French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools, which I think was clearly more about protecting the concept of Laïcité than it was about targetting muslims. The fact that the Turkish Justice and Development Party (Turkey) implemented similar laws would support this. jacoplane 14:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It is quite possible, that some of these gory pictures show institutionalized, violent persecution based on Islamophobia. Raphael1 18:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you support that whilst abiding by WP:NOR using WP:R? Nysin 18:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You want me to show a link to corporate media preferably FOX news, which states that anyone involved in the Iraq war is islamophobic? You've gotta be kidding! Raphael1 18:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Raphael1, you know that some pictures in a web gallery do not amount to a reliable source. Wikipedia:Reliable sources & Wikipedia:Verifiability are pretty clear, and if you don't feel that there are sources for something you wish to claim in the article (and obviously FOX news is not the best source out there) then it cannot be included in the article. If you are unwilling to accept Wikipedia policies then there is not much point in having this discussion. jacoplane 18:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Since 76 percent of all US corporate media news on Iraq come from current or former government or military officials, who obviously have an agenda, I wouldn't call them Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Raphael1 19:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well that leaves 24 percent that is "not bad", so find something from there. Maybe something from Seymour Hersh, The Guardian, or Al Jazeera. Anything will do really, but without any source we cannot include something in the article. jacoplane 19:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Connecting the Irak war to Islamophobia is pretty much what the "enemy" is saying[3] to get support in the Muslim world, so I guess not even the 24% "better news" will say that. I hope, that not even the "Muslim world" really thinks, that Bush is leading another Crusade (although he said it once). Anyway, I'm 100% sure, that at least some soldiers in Irak are islamophobic. Raphael1 22:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Does prisoner abuse count as "institutionalized, violent persecution"? [4][5] What about the 1,200 Arab and Muslim immigrants detained in the weeks after 9/11? [6] Raphael1 16:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

These sources seem credible to me. Thank you for making the effort to find them. jacoplane 16:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Salman Rushdie

Please remove the Salman Rushdie quote from the intro. We don't necessarily need a quote from an possiblyalleged islamophobic person on the article about Islamophobia. Raphael1 23:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

As was mentioned above, the wrong version got protected. I'm afraid the page will only be unprotected once we reach some kind of consensus (on the whole article) on this talk page. jacoplane 23:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

A good solution to this dispute is just to move all the quotes to wikiquote. Wikipedia is not a collection of quotes. This is an article about Islamophobia, not a collection of quotations appertaining to it. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I would accept Jacoplane's compromise re the criticism of the concept in the intro section. Also, Raphael1, we do necessarily have to include criticism from noteable writers such as Salman Rushdie, and it doesn't matter if you think he's "islamophobic" and should be censored on this article. -- Karl Meier 21:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It's ok if you put salman rushdie on the page, but please don't put him in the intro. I'd suggest the criticism section. Raphael1 23:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

For the reasons mentioned above, the criticism that has been made against the concept should also be mentioned in the intro section. Not as a direct quote though, but the way Jacoplane suggested. -- Karl Meier 08:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia is probably the most disputed word/concept in the english language at the moment. This should be stated in the intro, with the arguments about it in the critisism section. Preferably it should be a sourced quote.Hypnosadist 16:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Scare quotes

I strongly object to the use of "scare quotes" in the "opening sentece". I find this addition to be "POV" and "un-wiki". It could set a "precedent" which could cause "ethically-challenged" "users" to "add" such quotes to other "articles" just to prove a "point." savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

"Alleged" examples of Islamophobia?

All of the incidents in that section are sourced and are definitely examples of Islamophobia ("irrational fear or hatred of Islam and Muslims"). Thus there is no need for "alleged". --Revolución hablar ver 22:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree, but I think that most people here don't. Raphael1 23:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I actually tend to agree as well... all that needs to be done is to specify in the article (and not simply a linked ref.) which parties are stating that any particular reference is an example of Islamophobia (preferrably unbiased parties). We mustn't forget that the term "Islamophobia" is still a neologism whose definition is currently in a constant state of change. Due to this fact under a given definition one example may be considered Islamophobia while under another definition the same example would not. Netscott 23:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps surprisingly from my comments in this page, I agree in principle. However, many of the examples listed (scroll up in this talk page to find out which I've objected to, for example) are dubious. One can ameliorate this by following Netscott's suggestion, which I'd support. I'd add, however, that if no reliable source can be found to support a claim of Islamophobia, then according to WP:NOR it should not be listed. Several items listed don't (so far) qualify. Nysin 01:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Nysin has definitely made a good point about reliable sources and I agree with his contention that if such reliable sources are not specified in the article then corresponding examples are absolutely not to be cited in accordance with WP:NOR. Netscott 01:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I'd absolutely disagree with "All of the incidents in that section are sourced and are definitely examples of Islamophobia". It's the notion of removing "alleged" (or "perceived", or "possible", or ...) from the section name; it's unencyclopaedic. I also want to distinguish more explicitly a claim of Islamophobia in particular from "X event happened. {implicitly, I think it's "obvious" it's Islamophobic.}", which I've seen several times here. That doesn't count.

Finally, it's worthwhile being careful about the phrasing. It should probably be "X says Y", "X according to Y", "X claims Y", or the like, to make sure a circular positive feedback loop can't form as happened with the "definition". Nysin 01:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's face it, there is no unbiased source. If we call something unbiased, it's just because it has the same bias we have. Here are some reasons why a source wouldn't state an incident has been islamophobic:

1. It's obvious. I.e. there's no need to write, that a suicide bomber is a terrorist. Therefore some articles won't explicitly state as such.
2. The majority of the (christian resp. patriotic) readers don't want to read it, as it could "weaken the nation in a state of war".[7] Why do you think the Downing Street memo didn't get the media attention it deserves?[8][9] Why did MSNBC back down the Guantanamo Qu'ran desecration story?

Raphael1 17:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Find an article which does. There are a lot of media outlets around.
2. Red herring. Nysin 15:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Just because there are a lot of media outlets, doesn't mean, that there has to be an article for every car bombing, which states it was a terror attack.
2. Not everything is a Red herring, where you don't understand the connection. In times of war news are very biased, and you probably will call the sources I could cite unreliable. Raphael1 14:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

1. I've mentioned problems with analogies elsewhere, I think. Terrorism isn't islamophobia, and one difference is that the latter is a lot less well-defined; witness the search for a definition in this talk page. I might argue one should provide a reference for each terrorist incident too (i.e. I'm not going to get into that here), but it's somewhat easier to argue for requiring that of each incident of an action denoted by a word that by all indications thus far founds is just ten years old, used in diverse ways by different parties, and apparently without a specific definition. Under those conditions, yes, it is important that Wikipedia avoids original research by citing sources explicitly labeling something "Islamophobia". (Notice I didn't mention the media explicitly through this whole paragraph; indeed, my suggestion isn't because of the media status, but independent of it.)
2. I probably should have been more explicit here: the red herring is your going off about problems finding media to support your position, and your apparent position associating this with a reticence to provide sources explicitly claiming Islamophobia. That the media behave in some manner is isn't relevant to whether claims of Islamophobia need support; that's the red herring. Your comments about wartime media bias border on cliches or truisms; "truth is the first casualty of war" and the like, and I don't dispute them. Nysin 16:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

1. I suggest to take a look at the Definition of terrorism. You will find out, that there are over 100 definitions of the word "terrorism".
2. If you agree, that "truth is the first casualty of war", why would you want me to find "reliable sources" to support every claim of Islamophobia? What is a "reliable source" in wartime media? Raphael1 17:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Because it is a Wikipedia policy that all editors must follow. This philosophical debate is better suited to the Journalism ethics and standards article . When editing this article, we will assume that there are reliable sources, and we will require their inclusion as references in order for something to be included in the article. Haven't we been over this? jacoplane 17:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the problem is, that Nysin and Netscott don't consider "muslim sources" credible, whereas they probably won't have any problems considering FOX news or the New-York Times a "reliable source". Raphael1 18:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, if anyone here discredits a source based solely on the fact that the author is Muslim, I will certainly back you up, since that would be a ridiculous basis on which to judge sources. Wikipedia:Reliable sources should be our guideline in this, and is pretty clear IMO. I think it leaves a lot of room to include Arabic and other Muslim media: "Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident. However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or the British Socialist Workers Party. Groups like these may be used as primary sources only i.e. as sources about themselves, and even then with caution and sparingly. Extremist groups should not be used as secondary sources." jacoplane 18:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Raphael, support that. Quote me. Nysin 18:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You wrote once Even from Al Jazeera, which suggests, that Al Jazeera is less reliable that US news media, and here you strongly suspect that CAIR is not a Reliable source. Raphael1 19:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

My strong suspicions derive from [10], and are independent of anything specific to CAIR. I posted a Google groups link because I couldn't find the press release in question anywhere else, but it did have some source attribution, and was rather in-character for CAIR. Regarding Al-Jazeera, I think fairly highly of it actually. "Even Al Jazeera" referred to your only decent source still supporting your point ambiguously at best (in [11] for example, that's the only link supporting the French law being a "possible example of Islamophobia"); this is, like my assessement of using CAIR as a source, not based on any perception of Islam. Nysin 20:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my wrong accusation. I hope, that you will demonstrate your consent to "muslim sources" by objecting Netscotts rejection of them. Raphael1 16:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Raphael1, you've really got a penchant for mischaracterizing me... you've previously defamed me by falsely calling me a liar and never apologized and now you're saying that I reject muslim sources. Please refrain from posting such inane and illogical statements. The only 'problem' I have is with source reliability. If you've got a reliable source then by all means cite it but to add a source like Al-Jazeera and then blindly imply that Al-Jazeera is referring to something as a reference to Islamophobia is just stupid when in reality Al-Jazeera is quoting a particular party's view that a given reference is an example of it. Netscott 17:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, you have already demonstrated a very destructive way of "contributing" to this article. I can't see, why I should argue with you at all. Raphael1 22:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Destructive? Here let's Wiktionary that so that we can be sure that you understand the word: Wiktionary:destructive. Moving the "possible examples" to the talk page is not destructive... besides after having expressed my concerns regarding WP:NOR you know that I had good faith reasons to do that. It's ridiculous that WikiPedia is defining this term and then proceeding to illustrate the wikipedia definition by including "possible examples". I'm not arguing against the concept of Islamophobia but if the article is going to be citing 'possible' examples then it had better well include in the article under who's definition is an example possibly considered Islamophobic. You in particular seem to want to define the views of Hirsi Ali as Islamophobic when such a definition is utterly moronic for the simple fact that all she has done is criticize Islam (muslim fundamentalism in particular). The only verifiable example of hostility or violence that her criticism has engendered was the murder of Theo Van Gogh by an Islamist (which only strengthened the veracity of her criticisms). Netscott 23:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hirsi Ali is definitly islamophobic, because she does not only criticize Islam, instead every statement she makes about Islam is hostile. This means, that she obviously sees (even unfair) critique on Islam as normal, which is islamophobic according to Runnymede Trusts definition. Raphael1 11:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This looks familiar. Would you plase stop claiming every statement Ali's makes is, well, anything, including hostile to Islam? You can try to make that point without venturing into such ridiculous ground. Yes, at some point I'll see about finding a statement unambiguously not hostile with regard to Islam, but before that I want you to acknowledge that you're claiming something unverifiable, and thus unfit for Wikipedia. Nysin 13:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

If my point is so ridiculous, how comes you couldn't find a statement unambiguously not hostile with regard to Islam in two weeks? Raphael1 14:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I've not at all looked, nor even particularly read the already-linked articles for such statements. I'm not going to dignify your fallacies with that until, minimally, you acknowledge them as such. Your point seems implausible to me, but that's secondary at the moment. More is your claiming that everything she says has any common trait at all ideologically; that's unverifiable in principle, almost (unless one bugs her every statement and every keystroke). That's the truly ridiculous part. I'd suggest replacing it with "I've seen her make only X statements" or "So far as I've discerned, she's made only X statements" or the like if you still wish to claim absolutes. Stop implying your own omniscience with regard to her statements. Nysin 14:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't know every statement from Mrs. Ali, but all statements I've read so far are definitly hostile towards Islam. It is even quite possible, that she hasn't been always islamophobic. Raphael1 15:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well no, clearly she was not always Islamophobic, since she used to be a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood when she lived in Kenya. I would like to appeal to everyone to remain cool. Obviously this is a heated subject and the only way we will reach consensus is if all of us make the effort to be civil and refrain from engaging in personal vendettas. Let's focus on those things we can agree on rather than those things that are devisive. If we can get an article base we can all agree on, at least we can unlock the article, and then we can debate the other parts. jacoplane 15:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"The way Muslims believe or practice their religion is dynamic. The individual Muslim can choose to change. As humans they are endowed with reason and, if free, Muslims can, as Christians and Jews have done in the past and still do, progress by means of critical self-reflection. I regularly criticize Islam and especially the treatment of women as prescribed in the Qur' an and Hadith. By doing that I have annoyed many Muslims, some of whom actually want to hurt me. Despite this, rejecting some of the teachings in Islam is not the same as rejecting Muslims. Muslims deserve to be and should be viewed in Europe and elsewhere like all other humans." [12]

"I do not intend to deny that the prophet Muhammad may have improved the position of women in the 7th century AD. For example he contributed to abolishing the custom of burying girls alive at the age of 7 and the right of men to marry as many wives as they wished." [13]

"I also recognize that there are thousands of Muslims who treat men and women, boys and girls in an equal manner." [14]

"... but because her critics insist that she has described it (ed: antecedent is female circumcision) either as a universal feature of Muslim life, or one that is explicitly sanctioned by the Qur'an. Neither is the case. Rather, Hirsi Ali views it as a product of specific tribal practice combined with a broader cult of virginity, which is indeed upheld by the Qur'an (as it is by the Old Testament)." [15] In none of those quotations does she seem particularly hostile to Islam. Nysin 17:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Nysin for the butterfliesandwheels link. That article doesn't confirm my impression of Mrs. Ali being islamophobic. Raphael1 18:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

I was going to archive this talk page again. I was thinking of archiving everything up to the beginning of April. Any objections? jacoplane 18:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, really everything up to the page protection section. jacoplane 18:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

None here. Nysin 18:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Sources

I think we should look hard at some of the sources being used in this article (both pro & con), as I think a number of them seem to not follow the guidelines found on RS#Evaluating secondary sources. For example, [16] and [17] both have an agenda which, according to Wikipolicies means "Groups like these may be used as primary sources only i.e. as sources about themselves, and even then with caution and sparingly". The CAIR reference is being used for their view on the subject, which I think is acceptable, since it is not being presented as a absolute fact. The militant islam monitor is being used as a secondary source unrelated to itself which is not acceptable. This article has many many more examples though, and I think it would be wise to examine all references in more detail. jacoplane 18:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality warning

Not only does the (quite comical, but sort of unproductive) editing of the neutrality warning suggest that, perhaps, it should be left at a broader state (because different editors disagree about what it should warn about - the point of the warning appears to be to alert readers and other potential editors to this, and as such should generally err towards unions rather than intersections), but several of the examples are still dubious at best, to pick my pet issue. Redefining the ostensible points of contention to edit that away seems dishonest. Nysin 21:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

External links

Here's an idea. How about we simply delete all the links and start from scratch. I think we should have max 5 links that are etremely relevant to this topic. Links to articles should not be here. What links are essential?? jacoplane 01:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Why should we limit ourselves to 5 links?

• Forum against Islamophobia and Racism
• Islamophobia.org
• Islamophobia Watch
• Islamic Human Rights Commission
• Human Rights Watch
• Council on American-Islamic Relations
• International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights
• European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia
• The Runnymede Trust
• United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

These are my Top10 for this topic. Raphael1 03:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Remove the links to the articles, and doesn't that swap it back to a (relatively) uncited state which can evidently cause such issues with an article of this sort? Granted, there's arguably a need to have a section which presents an overview without overly concerning itself with several dozen references - but that's what the introduction should function as. Nysin 12:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. As this seems to apply to external links only, I'm neutral for now. Nysin 15:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

weasle words

I don't think this subject needs weasle words like "It is sometimes used to describe ...", "Some consider these feelings ..." or "others claim that they are wholly or partly justified. The term is used variously and the existence of the phenomenon is disputed." Others? Who? Who seriously disputes the phenomenon? Why don't you add to the anti-semitism page that some (Nazis) dispute the phenomenon?

"The following references have been used by various parties relative to the concept of Islamophobia." What is a reference relative to the concept?!?! Is the letter 'I' relative to Islamophobia because it's the first letter of that word?!? Raphael1 11:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with the the first part of what you're saying here I respectfully disagree with the second part. In the second part of what you are saying there are exactly zero weasel words. The second part is reworded to include those references in a NPOV way. Netscott 11:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

"References in connection resp. relative to" has no meaning at all. You could as well say something like: "This is a new section"

Please explain what references in that section cannot be considered "Alleged examples of Islamophobia" in a NPOV way? Raphael1 11:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Raphael1, you remember how you added the "accuser" column to Charities accused of ties to terrorism? Well "alleged" is nearly identical to "accuser" and as such there should be a table setup on Islamophobia specifying who's doing "alleging". Otherwise the "alleged" title is less than NPOV. Netscott 11:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I get it. Alleged itself is a weasel word in this context.Timothy Usher 11:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I got no problem with that. I'm sure we won't have "U.S. state department" all over the place. ;-) Raphael1 11:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere. And yes you are right Timothy Usher "Alleged" is a weasel word here. Netscott 11:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I've eliminated the intro sentence to this section, as I agree it's redundant, and posted an awkward compromise version of the section title. By all means, hack away at the header, but Raphael1 is right that the intoductory sentence is unnecessary.Timothy Usher 11:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason "Alleged" is a weasel word as the article stands now is because it in effect is saying "Nameless parties allege" that such an example is Islamophobia. Netscott 11:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Tag edit

I removed "contrary to..." because it constitutes an argument about whether "criticism of the concept" should be here (and, I note, one in which some editors are engaging in the opposite argument re other articles). What remains is enough to identify the reason for the dispute.Timothy Usher 12:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Lead section

I've reverted Raphael's version of the lead section, because of what I believe is a number of violations of NPOV and other errors:

1. The NPOV tag Raphael insist on claim that the article is not neutral because a number of other articles doesn't have a "criticism of the concept" section. However fact is that it doesn't matter to the neutrality of this article what other articles include and doesn't include. Articles are supposed to be written according to NPOV and if there has been made noteable criticism of the concept, then it should be mentioned, just like in any other article. If Raphael feel there is problems with neutrality in the other articles he want to mention, then he should go and fix them. This article is not the place to express his thoughts about these articles.

2. Raphael's version insist that "Islamophobia refers to a fear of Islam which leads to hostility toward or prejudice against Muslims as a religious group." and then add that "The word is a neologism that has yet to have one clear and explicit definition". I feel that it would be more reasonable first the make it clear to the readers that it has yet to have a clear definition, and that It is sometimes used to describe fear of Islam, which allegedly leads to hostility toward or prejudice against Muslims as a religious group. I also very much doubt that everyone would agree to the specific definition that we use in this article, and we don't even have a source for it. I think it would help us make the article more neutral, if we doesn't make such a strong claim about our definition of islamophobia.

3. The fact that the concept has recieved a lot of noteable criticism is of course a very important, and it should be mentioned in the lead section, which is supposed to be a short version of the article itself. However, Raphael refuse that and keep deleting that "The term has often been criticized". For some reason he also keep insisting on removing the two words that mention Salman Rushdie was one of the persons behind this criticism of the concept, and claim that I have already agreed that this should not be mentioned. However, I do not agree to that. The only this I agree to, is that the criticism should not be a direct quote, and of course more like Jacoplane previously suggested.

4. "The effects of Islamophobia range from individual hatred to institutionalized, violent persecution." is a POV claim, and the opinion of the sources behind it. I believe it should be mentioned as such.

-- Karl Meier 12:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

ad 1) I think, this is a misunderstanding. I don't think, that the other articles are having problems with neutralitiy. I think, that this article is having a problem with neutrality, because extremly biased positions are overrepresented. If the anti-semitism article would include Nazi opinions who criticise the concept of anti-semitism, I'd complain on that page as well. Raphael1 19:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

ad 2) The 4 references given on the definition are more than many other terms definitions have. Raphael1 19:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

ad 3) "The term has often been criticized" is not precise enough for an encyclopedia. Who did critisize it and why is that persons opinion relevant? The current versions intro contains Jacoplanes suggestion on how to mention critizism in the intro, which is "A number of writers, journalists, and intellectuals say it confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers." Raphael1 19:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

ad 4) What is your POV on the effects of Islamophobia? Where do you think does religious hatred lead to? Raphael1 19:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

1) What opinions do you think should be excluded from a neutral article, and what do you mean with "biased opinions"?

2) What sources is it that support the definition that we currently use in the intro section?

3) I clarified it a bit and mentioned that Salman Rushdie was one of the writers that has critizised the concept, but for some reason you removed that?

4) We are not here to discuss our personal opinions.

-- Karl Meier 11:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

1) I don't think, that any opinion should be excluded from any article, but extreme positions should not be overrepresented. I didn't write "biased opinions", instead I wrote about "extremly biased positions" and "Nazi opinions". Would you like to have Nazi statements in the anti-semitism article without qualifying them as being anti-semitic? Raphael1 05:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

2) I suggest you read the references instead of removing them.

3) I don't understand your question. Please show me the diff, where I did that removal.

4) I don't know what you are here for, but according to Wikipedia:Talk_page questions, challenges, excised text, arguments relevant to changing the text, and commentary on the main page are all fair play.

Raphael1 05:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

1) Please remain civil and stop calling the opinions that you disagree with "Nazism" and other such things.

2) Please give me the links to the sources that support the current definition of islamophobia in the intro section.

3) You do that every time our remove my version of the intro section

4) My personal opinions is not relevant to changing the text of the article.

-- Karl Meier 08:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

References

Netscott, about half of the references involve no parties claiming (or alleging, explicitly believing, et cetera) Islamophobia. Given that said parties shouldn't be cited in the article merely due to being Wikipedia editors, how do they satisfy "The following references have been used relative to the concept of Islamophobia by parties who believe they represent examples of it. Follow the links to the right of each corresponding reference to know which parties are using that term."? Nysin 22:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Nysin, lets give fellow editors a day or two to whip that reference section into order. The new section heading has just been put into place and Raphael1 has already expressed a willingness to add those who are "Alleging" to the article. In a good faith gesture they should be left there while Raphael1 prepares these new changes. Netscott 00:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is it my task to find the accusers? I did research the accusers on the Charities accused of ties to terrorism article. Why don't you want to help me with this article? Raphael1 18:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been demonstrating good faith by not touching the still ridiculous references section, but it's been receiving essentially no attention, particularly of the sort of locating accusers. I'm not sure I want to leave it in this state indefinitely - at some point, either those references go or activity appears to substantiate them (as instances of Islamophobia, just that that they happened; Raphael's most recent addition of a couple of links on the .au thing arguably, barely breaches that standard, insofar as one of the links is to a site exclusively about religiously-motivated attacks - but, in light of Netscott's quite legigimate NOR worries, I'd still prefer, strongly, that the references actually name "Islamophobia". As far as I could tell, neither of the new links did. Nysin 02:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Why shouldn't a "religiously-motivated attack" against Muslims qualify as islamophobic, when nobody would doubt, that a "religiously-motivated attack" against Jews qualifies as anti-semitic? Raphael1 06:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Arguably it should (and arguably it should not), but Wikipedia shouldn't be the entity to decide that. That's the crux of the NOR problem. However, you ignored the other part of my comment: that a near-majority of those events have no links even suggesting their motivation is related to Islam, nevermind whether it qualifies as "Islamophobic". Nysin 20:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Irishpunktom, discuss what? To avoid NOR, Wikipedia's editors can't be defining Islamophobia and then claiming from that purported definition (which is still heavily in flux, according to the recent edit history) that a given event is Islamophobic. This is the point I'e made in my previous few messages in this portion of the talk page, as well. Present evidence, please, of someone calling those events Islamophobic, and don't (as far as anyone not a mindreader can tell from your edit comment) mindlessly revert. Nysin 17:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Irishpunktom, I've been trying to "discuss" here, but with negligible response. First you to me to post to the talk page and then revert without comment. Please stop, to all external appearances, mindlessly reverting for its own sake. The three links I removed all violate NOR, because in each of them Wikipedia judges what's Islamophobia. This seems especially dubious when the definition itself is effectively in a revert war at the moment.

Do you claim that the edits are not NOR? Well, then state that here and why. Will you (or someone else, it doesn't really matter) show any inclination towards actually addressing NOR, as it went unaddressed for several days before Raphael showed bemusement, after which I waited a couple more days before editing again? Then I'll stop molesting them for a bit, again, in good faith. Nysin 11:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Irishpunktom, yet another uncommented revert ("+incidents" was only barely better), I see. This is getting silly. How, precisely, do you disagree with my removal of that incident? Will you ever bother responding on this talk page rather than simply auto-reverting changes you disagree with? Is "representing a distorted view of Islam" necessarily Islamophobic? Respond, please? You're increasingly hindering my efforts to assume good faith with this sort of evidently habitual response. Nysin 14:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Banners

Why are there three banners? The first one sums it up just fine. Neutrality is disputed, factual accuracy is disputed. The second banner is saying the same as the first, but it's being more specific. Is it necessary? The third banner is disputing the factual accuracy, again with a more accurate statement. It's not necessary. Factual accuracy is factual accuracy. Joffeloff 10:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I inserted the secondary banners but now I believe that this wasn't necessary on my part. The template {{Totally disputed}} in fact covers everything. Netscott 11:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The Netherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy report

The Netherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy recently published a number of reports that have been presented to the Dutch minister of foreign affairs, Ben Bot. The report criticised a number of Dutch politicians on their stance towards Islam. The report has since been criticised by a number of Dutch policians and academics. Background stories: [18], [19], [20]. jaco♫plane 21:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

References

To all editors! If you delete reference (especially ones with name attribute) think twice and check for possible lost of reference. I'm tired of cleaning up after you. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 08:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there someone out there actually reading talk page? -- tasc ^talk_deeds 05:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Obvious POV

Why anyone reverts it should be obvious, it's amazingly POV. --CrayZ 19:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry CrayZ, but looking at your contributions, such as this one, makes it difficult for me to take anything you say seriously. jaco♫plane 21:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This introduction

This introduction is simply ridiculous. "The effects of Islamophobia..."? Is this a pathological diagnosis? If so, WP:OR.Timothy Usher 05:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Of cource it is pathologic, just as every other racism is too. Raphael1 10:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Bad and pathological are two different things. I criticized Cavalli-Sforza for the same thing, so don't take it too hard. Racism is a bad idea, not a mental disorder.

It's hard to think of anything less NPOV than arbitrarily declaring one side of an argument mentally ill. I think you'd agree with me that fear of Islam (if not overt antipathy) is increasingly common in the west. Are all these people becoming mentally ill? To say no isn't to endorse their fear, but merely to acknowledge it as within the normal (non-pathological) range of human reaction and interpretation.Timothy Usher 10:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia is a social pathologic phenomenon, where Muslim suddenly become "suspects" in Western countries. I didn't know, that we have to bring in the views of Islamophobes into the article. Are the views of anti-Semites properly represented in the article about anti-Semitism? Raphael1 11:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Not that I'm wild about comparing this to anti-semitism, but actually, yes, they are. Bibigon 11:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

"...where Muslim suddenly become "suspects" in Western countries."

I can only speak for what's going on in the United States - there are certainly a handful of people with an agenda, but most Americans really don't know enough about Islam to have a prejudice against it in any ideological sense. What people know is that someone has perpetrated some deeply evil deed, most memorably murdering several thousand of our countrymen on the eleventh of September, two thousand one, and that when they did this they said, "Allahu akbar." It's not pretty, and it's arguably not Islam, but it is the reality people react to. You can call it ignorance, and in a way you'd be right, but it'd be an even deeper ignorance not to know that these deeds were perpetrated by the self-appointed defenders of the Umma. You can't rightly blame people for being afraid. That was the intent. Some of these "suspects" are quite guilty, some never were. It is not all "phobia". There is a real danger. You can deny this, but only at the expense of credibility: you are not going to convince us that the danger is our hallucination. You will not succeed in convincing us that we are all mentally ill, simply for being afraid. Cut this far to the margin and Americans, at least, will see right through it.Timothy Usher 10:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not blaming anyone for being afraid. But fear doesn't necessarily have to result in phobia. The thing is, that for having a prejudice against a religion, you don't really have to know anything about it. Indeed quite the contrary is true: The less you know about a religion, the easier you can build up prejudice. The "right" way to cope with ones irrational fear, is to confront oneself with it (i.e. by visiting a mosque in your neighbourhood). Those people who do will soon find out, how wrong it is to label all Muslims "suspects". Raphael1 22:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Intent of French lawmakers

User:Irishpunktom makes this edit: [21]. Is there verifiable evidence what the French lawmakers intended when enacting said law? Also, French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools and the sources it uses say small religious symbols are allowed; is there verifiable evidence the word small is incorrect and should be replaced by normal? Or is that replacement the invention of one editor? Weregerbil 15:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The Stasi commission report deals explicitly and at length about the Headscarf, and this is repeated in the article you have sourced. Further, the law banned large crosses, it did not mention small ones. --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

So do you have verifiable references that the explicit intent of the law was to ban headscarfs? Something factual, not speculation. Also French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools quite clearly says small symbols are allowed (as do some external sources [22][23][24][25] — as that is what the official commission on the issue said); do you have reliable verifiable sources that say "normal" or is that characterization your own? Weregerbil 16:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, the law itself does not say anything about big or small crosses. The commission report uses the word "petite" which readily translates to "small" (as widely reported by third parties). So "normal" is incorrect. Weregerbil 16:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The Commission refers to banning a "cross of obviously excessive size" (une croix de dimension manifestement excessive)- It uses the example of a small cross as not to be banned, thus, normal is is a good example of what is acceptable. Again, the commission refers repeatedly to the Headscarf. --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

So do you have verifiable sources for the conclusion that "normal is acceptable"? The commission says small is acceptable. Do you have some non-WP:OR sources? "Small" is eminently verifiable. Why not use the real genuine truthful verifiable word? And mentioning headscarfs as the explicit intention of the law is misleading to the reader, as the law forbids all conspicuous religious symbols. Weregerbil 17:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The law was designed to combat the growing numbers of Muslim girls wearing hijab in schools. That was its intention, as cited by members who voted to enact it and the commission, and the vast majority of media interviews of relevent parties at the time. --Irishpunktom\^talk 22:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It can be read in the Amnesty International Report 2005, that the ban primarily effected the headscarf. Raphael1 23:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

While it's true the law isn't technically discriminatory, the only reason it was even considered was to put an end to hijab in school, as anyone who even vaguely followed this would be well aware. I don't think there should be any problem finding news articles from this time period that made the intent crystal-clear. These would be better sources than Amnesty International.Timothy Usher 00:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, we have established it is your opinion the law affected headscarfs. Do you have verifiable sources that was the explicit main purpose of the law? The law itself and the commission that gave instructions for interpreting it appear to say the law applies to all conspicuous religious symbols.

I find it troubling that something as obviously widely verifiable as "small" vs "normal" is contested. It's true, it's eminently verifiable, and still the article lies about it. Poisoning the article with ever-increasing tiny bits of POV rot makes the whole article higly suspect. Sort of a big fat this is POVsters' playing ground, others keep out sign. Weregerbil 08:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not your problem here. Check my edits to this article. But you can't honestly be saying that wasn't the purpose of the law. This wasn't remotely denied by its supporters. I don't even have a position on the law, beyond saying it'd be inappropriate in the United States. I'm counting on IPT and Raphael1 to provide sources here, and I've no doubt they will. You're barking up the wrong tree.Timothy Usher 08:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean anything personal. I thought of putting my reply between your and Irishpunktom's replies but that seemed messy... Trying to talk about the issue here, not about the people talking about the issue. Weregerbil 09:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Folks I actually live in France. From what I know from having followed the debate about it, critics of that law claimed it was anti-Islam when the reality was that it was put in to effect towards secular ends. The French government is rather strong on maintaining a seperation of church and state and saw a need to further strengthen this seperation by instituting this law. Netscott 08:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, this is the way the French frame it, and rightly so according to French post-revolutionary tradition, but the hijab was the proximate threat to this seperation which inspired the law, yes? (I didn't know you live in France - cool).Timothy Usher 10:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a simple issue to fix. Just throw in a line to the effect of. "It is widely believed that the law was passed primarily to ban the Muslim hijab." Then find one of those articles back from when this was passed, and source the aforementioned belief. Bibigon 14:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Weregerbil 19:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Which is why I proposed that those who advocate suhc a point add find a citation for the widespreadness of the belief. Weasel words are fine if they are well sourced and verified. Then the widespread belief isn't weasely, it's factual in nature. Bibigon 23:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

BNP

There is no need for the Citation, at least for the reasons given. The image is of a BNP poster, which says "make may 4 a referendum on Islam" - How is that not a campaign against the Religion of Islam? - For further references and images, etc, go the BNP website, but I think these two are fine. --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Funny enough on this particular point I tend to agree with Irishpunktom, particularly considering that BNP is already referenced in the article. Netscott 17:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I've learned never to be surprised by agreement. As you say, the photo speaks for itself.Timothy Usher 22:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The only problem is to put it in proper section! -- tasc ^talk_deeds 11:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the placement of the image, I agree with Bibigon. I don't think the BNP image should be at the top of the article, it should only be placed in the context of the discussion on the BNP. Any other use (like placing it at the top of this article) is a copyright infringement, as the requirements for fair use are quite specific. jaco♫plane 10:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, I have acted on it, as I have previously made my position pretty clear on the talk page. Irishpunktom has merely reverted without offering any kind of explanation. I stand by my opinion that the current usage is not in compliance with the fair use rules that state that fair use images can only be used for critical commentary (as they would be in the context of where the BNP is discussed) and not merely for decorative purposes. Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy is very clear on this. jaco♫plane 10:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Rational for the inclusion of Poster is included, where it should be, on the talk page of the image. --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Original Research

Why is this line: "According to Human Rights Watch and the Council on American-Islamic Relations there has been a recent increase in Islamophobic events and hate crimes against Muslims[1] and Islamic organizations.[2]" included when neither of the ref links actually makes reference to islamophobia? Netscott 09:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

In view of the fact that my concerns about the original research nature of this text have gone unanswered, I'm removing it for now. Netscott 10:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Both references mention hate crimes against Muslims. I've changed the text accordingly. Raphael1 12:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Images

Irishpunktom, where is the reference that allege that the images that you insist on adding, is somehow "islamophobic" or in any way connected to the concept? Please quote from these sources. If you don't have such a source, it is original research to include them as an example of "islamophobia". Another thing is (as mentioned by several editors above) that, they should be at the "References in connection to Islamophobia" section, which is the place in the article, where the alleged examples of "islamophobia" is. -- Karl Meier 08:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• : images as Islamophobia here - That they should be elsewhere is ridiculous, they cn be anywhere, they are fair use the concept of islamophobia as detailed in thier rationale. - Irishpunktom\^talk 08:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a section for alleged examples of "islamophobia", and I suggest that you use it for all your referenced discoveries. You shouldn't pollute the whole article though, with allegations of "islamophobia" from someone like Inayat Bunglawala from the Muslim Council of Britain. Anyway, I believe the reference is good enough to include one of the images in the "References in connection to Islamophobia" section. One should be enough, as there is no reason that we waste our readers time, repeating this allegation again and again. -- Karl Meier 08:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

What is your problem with Inayat Bunglawala from the Muslim Council of Britain? Raphael1 09:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Karl, the point is ridiculous! Because the BNP have been mentioned once in the article they should not be mentioned again? - No. It is proper to include an image in the opening paragraph, and that one is a good example of the alleged Phenomenon.--Irishpunktom\^talk 09:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Raphael: He's hardly a neutral source. -- Karl Meier 09:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Why? Because he's Muslim? Are non-Muslims neutral sources for the Islamophobia article? Is Salman Rushdie? Raphael1 09:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Irishpunktom: The introsection i supposed to be balanced. On Wikipedia it's called NPOV. -- Karl Meier 09:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The intro section has a NPOV - i am not changing the tezt. --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The intro was NPOV until you changed it, and added allegations from your highly biased sources. -- Karl Meier 09:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

What, exactly, are you talking abut? Salman Rushdie is a very biased source, but his name is there, in the opening paragraph so as to serve to NPOV the article. --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the voices in support of the concept and voices that critizise the concept is there, and they where quite balanced towards each other, until you started your "add BNP images everywhere" crusade. The images should be where they belong, which is in the "References in connection to Islamophobia". -- Karl Meier 10:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Not everywhere - There are two Karl, just two. one at the beginning, and one in the lower section. This is not everywhere. Do you propose removing biased sources, such as salmon Rushdie? --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You need to understand that this articles topic is "islamophobia", and not BNP. Please end your campaign, and stop posting their material all over the article. -- Karl Meier 11:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is about Islamophobia, and there are two BNP images included therin to illistrate the point. Two, not "everywhere", two. Two small images. These images are not "all over the article", there is one at the top, and one in a lower section. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Why do you believe, that one image in the appropiate section is not enough to illustrate your point about BNP? -- Karl Meier 11:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

And please explain, why did you revert the changes to the "external links" section, and the decreasing of the font-size? -- Karl Meier 11:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Karl, if you have a better image to add, go ahead and add it, but what you are doing is blanking a small image from the opening paragraph - Which is where an image should be - and replacing it with nothing. you have also accused me of some form of Campaign to publicise the BNP - Your assertions are ridiculous - Do you have a better image, if so, bring it forth and we can debate its merits, stop removing images sourced and cited and used. In relation to the other changes - if you want to make them, please discuss here why you think they should be made --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, this is still going on? The image at the top is not being used for any critical analysis of the BNP, it is being used for decorative purposes only, and as such violates Wikipedia's Fair use policy. I'm not going to spell this out again. jaco♫plane 11:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

the image at the top is being used, per its fair use rational, as a Visual descriptor of the contested Phenomenon of Islamophobia. Thats its' rational, thats what it is doing. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The fair use tag specifically states that such images may be used: "for identification and critical commentary on the poster itself or the political movement it represents". So a critical analysis of this particular poster, or of the BNP. Neither is being done, it is being used as a decorative image to demonstrate Islamophobia. This use does not fall within the scope of fair use. jaco♫plane 11:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Irishpunktom doesn't seems to have a very good understanding of what is required for "fair use" to apply. I even noticed that some fair use images has just been removed from his userpage. -- Karl Meier 12:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Another thing is that he continue to refuse to explain his revert of the changes to external links, and his reversion of the reduced font-size in the "references" section, which is accepted standard in Wikipedia. Overall, I believe his edits looks increasingly disruptive. -- Karl Meier 12:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

critizism of the concept

I wonder, what it means to critizise concept of Islamophobia. Does it mean, that those people don't conceive ("conceive" and "concept" both stem from the latin word "concipere") the term? Do those people as well critizise concept of anti-Semitism (another form of religious hatred)? Raphael1 13:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Some criticize the term itself as misleading or incorrect, others find the concept itself dubious, and some do both. As I recall, all four combinations of such are represented in the criticism section. As for their views on the concept of antisemitism, one'd have to ask them, or find somewhere where they might have commented on that. Nysin 15:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

How can a term alone be misleading or incorrect? A term can be used incorrectly, but a term alone can never be incorrect itself. Raphael1 13:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Raphael1, i'll explain some of my critisisms of the concept to try help your understanding;

1.The Deffinition(runnymede) a)is written in such a broad manner that any critique about the belief's /practice's /presuppositions of islam is islamophobia. b) is so broad that Osama Bin Ladin scores a 4out8 (1,2,4,5) and thats before you talk about the fact that he has had killed thousands of muslims.

2.The Rate at which the word is used, as many people get called islamophobic for critacising an arab government on is human rights, or talking about slavery in history under the ottoman empire for example.

3.An Ulterior motive? This is some thing a i believe VERY FEW people do, and that is promoting this concept not to protect innocent muslims from discrimination but to act as a firewall to protect a very powerful idea from legitamate scrutany.

My POV is that Islamophobia exists and is evidenced by the BNP in my country, but the concept is over used and over hyped.Hope that helps you Raphael1.Hypnosadist 15:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I very much disagree to 1a). The Runnymede definition is very concise and does not include any critique on Islam. IMHO it's definition is way better, than any of the efforts to seperate anti-Semitism from anti-Zionism. Reg. 1b) It's a very interesting thought to describe OBL as islamophobic. I am sure that many people would agree, that OBL is indeed islamophobic. Reg. 2) It is possible, that the term is used inflationary, but that wouldn't legitimate a criticism of the concept. Reg. 3) The concept doesn't need any promotion. If it is used, where it is non-applicable, it's usage should be critizised, not the term itself. Raphael1 17:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

BNP reference

If the best that this can be supported as is "anti-Muslim feelings", it cannot stay in an article about Islamophobia. Nysin 15:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Fred Barnes and Albert Mohler refs

The two videos indicated aren't currently supported as Islamophobia. Arguments exist that they aren't and that they are, but not only isn't it necessarily obvious, but not relying on a reliable source constitues original research. Nysin 23:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

What arguments exist, that they aren't? I know, that you don't have to answer that question, but since you made that claim, you might want to prove it. Raphael1 13:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Mohler doesn't criticize Islam per se, but as far as I can tell pretty much any opposing religion (though I was under the impression Zen Buddhism was somewhat compatible):

"Well, I would have to say as a Christian that I believe any belief system, any world view, whether it's Zen Buddhism or Hinduism or dialectical materialism for that matter, Marxism, that keeps persons captive and keeps them from coming to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, yes, is a demonstration of satanic power."

Barnes's statement "that Muslims all over Europe and all over the world are certainly enemies of Western civilization" doesn't suggest that all Muslims are enemies of Western civilization but just that being a Muslim enemy of Western civilization (out of the 1.3 billion Muslims, their existence seems plausible) is not geographically restricted. This is not necessarily Islamophobic; if one believes that any Muslims are such enemies, it's unclear to me why one would then assume they'd be located uniquely within one region, given Islam's worldwide existence. As such, this is fairly arguably not Islamophobic.

Barnes's other notion, the bolded "contempt" line, appears to be an interpretation of the reaction to the cartoons; depending on how staunchly one supports such principles, it's not particularly difficult to see "contempt for democracy, for freedom of speech, for freedom of the press, and particularly, for freedom of religion" in those reactions. One could thus suggest it's not Islamophobic. Nysin 21:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Regaring Mohler: I'd suggest, that you listen to some of his radio programs. [26][27][28]

Regarding Barnes: He didn't say "There are Muslims all over Europe and all over the world, who are certainly enemies of Western civilization.", did he? I haven't found much Islam bashing from Barnes apart from that, but I've found some rather interesting piece from Barnes about Bushs religious mission. [29] Raphael1 14:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I listened to two of the linked Mohler pieces. The February 9th one wasn't hosted by Mohler, though, so I didn't bother with it.

The November 14th show consists of his quoting a French newspaper and of his guest, Lt. Col. Lambert, responding to questions. Mohler states little about Islam himself in it, and even twice disclaims that Lambert's views are only necessarily his own, not those of others.

Mohler does refer to "Eurabia" and states that "no wonder they're beginning to think of France as occupied territory waiting for Muslim transformation", but he also states in the March 20th show that some Muslims themselves have said this. He doesn't provide references, but if he's to be believed, this isn't his invention or his attempting to infer the mindset of someone else, but merely taking others' statements as they'd said.

The March 20th show begins with yet another newspaper reading, this time about a reported Muslim-turned-Christian in Afghanistan on trial for such. Pointing out that perhaps the purported possible death sentence isn't just doesn't strike me as Islamophobic, but maybe you disagree.

Mohler repeats his non-Islam-specific sentiments from the O'Reilly show. They're not any more about Islam this time than last.

In fact, at one point he acknowledges explictly that "it is not true that every single Muslim is about to become a suidicde bomber ... join the Taliban ... Al-Quaida". He does perceive internal differences within Islam. Further, he defends Muhammad against accusations of pedophilia by a caller by suggesting that (a) characters in the Bible also married young girls and (b) Semitic, desert, and nomadic cultures marry young even beyond Islam.

Mohler's argument, rather, is that "every single Muslim has the Muslim responsibility under the Koran to bring the entire world under Quranic rule". He later elaborates upon this notion by characterizing Islam as dividing the world into the "House of Islam" and "House of war", where the latter comprises the portion not under Islamic control. By such logic, "it is a religion of peace only after the imposition of Quranic rule". Finally, he generalizes this into a claim that "we should see that the [inner logic of this faith] is violence".

This is a claim about what the Islamic theology, rather than what Muslims believe, per se. I don't know enough to gauge its accuracy, but if it's plausibly derived from the Quran, labeling it Islamophobic seems dubious.

I'll respond regarding the other reference later. Nysin 22:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Barnes, according to to the Media Matters link in the article, states:

BARNES: It tells us a lot. It tells us that our enemy or -- is not just Al Qaeda. That there's -- that Muslims all over Europe and all over the world are certainly enemies of Western civilization. Look what the showing of these cartoons, which I do -- originally thought was a mistake. They shouldn't have run them. Now, I think we've learned a lot from this. We see the Muslims' contempt for democracy, for freedom of speech, for freedom of the press, and particularly, for freedom of religion.

Yes, Barnes's rather effusive view of Bush's "calling" in the Weekly standard article is interesting... Nysin 18:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• The OR concerns still haven't been addressed. I'm tempted at this point to simply remove the alleged references. Nysin 20:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say, that Albert Mohler is islamophobic, because

1. he sees Islam as a monolitic bloc. For example he repeatedly refers to sharia law as the islamic law, which is incorrect. There are many different versions of what Muslims call sharia.
2. he claims the inner logic of Islam is violence and claims we are living in a clash of religions.
3. he doesn't see Islam as a genuine faith but rather believes that every single muslim has to bring the entire world under islamic rule.
4. he invites a guest (Col. Steve Lambert), who's book he enjoyed, to his show, who claims that Islam is a religion of war, Islam is based on violence, Mohammed was a terrorist and the US is engaged in a religious war.

Raphael1 23:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

1. "it is not true that every single Muslim is about to become a suicide bomber ... join the Taliban ... Al-Quaida" suggests that he doesn't view Muslims, at least, as a monolithic bloc.
2. This is probably your strongest point, and he appears to run afoul of Runnymede's characterization. That said, because Runnymede suggests that Islam be "seen as diverse and progressive, with internal differences, debates, and development", one can see it in its diversity as simultaneously "violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism, engaged in 'a clash of civilisations'" and "as an actual or potential partner in joint cooperative enterprises and in the solution of shared problems". Mohler, indeed, appears to hold both views simultaneously: beyond his stated perception of the internal logic of Islam, he also sees opportunities for cooperating with them (listen to the last few minutes of the show and his cake scenario, for example, as well as the general concern for being able to cooperate with Muslims by prudently knowing how not to behave).
3. Support that he doesn't seen Islam as a genuine faith. He thinks it's incorrect, being Christian, but he says: "I don't doubt the sincerity of these people for a moment. To the contrary, I think you must be very sincere to do some of the things these peersons do, including forfeiting their lives. I don't doubt the sincerity of a suicide bomber."
4. That he might have enjoyed Lambert's book (I'll not dispute for that moment this as it seems plausible, though I don't remember it specifically) doesn't imply that he agreed with it. Whether Lambert's Islamophobic or not, unless Mohler actually states somewhere that he agrees with statements of Lambert's which you'd label Islamophobic, assuming such is ill-founded.

The basic issue here, though, is that this sort of interpretation and discussion is still OR, unless someone or some organization explicitly labels him as Islamophobic; you've not shown that here. Yet, you reverted without having found a non-OR source. Why? Nysin 00:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Mohler also states, that "Islam is at war with the cross of Christ" [30] and "Islam has turned its wrath upon the West, Israel, and Christian culture. [...] The clash between Islam and Western civilization represents one of the most dangerous flash-points on the contemporary world scene." [31] He should know better: Only the uncivilized can engage in a clash. Reg. WP:NOR: Mr. Jones has written two articles for the Star-Telegram on that issue: [32][33] Raphael1 12:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what was the relevance of any of that? Does it solve the WO:NOR issue somehow? Bibigon 15:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Raphael1, in what part of WP:NOR do you find the pronoun I like: I'd say that Albert Mohler is islamophobia? Netscott 05:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Prisoner Abuse refs

The reference to prisoner abuse in Guantanamo Bay does not invoke the term Islamophobia. I'm not quite sure what it is, other than a list of incidents of something. The reference for prisoner abuse in Britain does not appear to be a reliable NPOV source to me, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding how that works. Can someone take a look at that page, and suggest a course of action for that reference? Bibigon 00:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

POV

Parts of this article are severely biased pro Islam. As one example, the 2005 Sydney riots started after attacks by Muslims, not against them. 1652186 19:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is not as islamophobic as some editors want it to be. Reg. the Cronulla race riots: Do you have any prove for your claim? Raphael1 23:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh... Just about every reference in the Cronulla article. If a bunch of white people attack the Lebanese because they have been raping women and beating up lifeguards, that's retaliation, not racism. 1652186 08:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I looked up the references, but the articles don't mention any rape. They do mention the bashing of two lifeguards though:

The trouble erupted on Sunday at North Cronulla, where drunken mobs among a crowd of about 5000 chanted racist slogans and attacked people of Middle Eastern appearance in retaliation for the bashing of two lifeguards, which locals blamed on Lebanese gangs.[34]

The rally had been called in response to the assault of two lifeguards last weekend. Commissioner Ken Moroney says an ambulance officer was attacked while transferring an injured person and the crowd turned on a woman because of her race. "That woman was saved, literally saved by the police officers and those officers deserve my highest commendation for the way in which they went about their task," he said. "The other equally offensive conduct today, the absolutely total un-Australian conduct today, was an attack on an ambulance. "That has brought a higher level of shame to those involved in that level of attack and they deserve to be condemned in the highest possible terms," he said. Commissioner Moroney says the attack on the ambulance officer is hypocritical given the rally was called in response to the assault of two lifeguards last weekend.[35]

Is there no police in Down Under? If anyone assaults two lifeguards, the culprits should be punished. If people start attacking any innocent Lebanese in response to such an assault, it's not a "retaliation", it's called Lynch mob. Raphael1 11:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I found plenty of Cronulla rape stories with a few seconds of googling. There are also references to news articles about the Muslim rape gangs in 2005 Cronulla riots and Sydney Lebanese-Australian gang rapes. Weregerbil 12:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you trying to say, that the rapes, that occured in the year 2000, whos culprits have been sentenced to a total of 240 years in prison, is a legitimate reason for beating up several dozen innocent people? Raphael1 12:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying that it is a (just as regrettable) retaliation or lynch mob if you wish, not racism or Islamophobia. 1652186 12:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Dr Amanda Wise, who said: "If a group of white young men calling to kill all Lebanese and wogs is not racist, well, I don't know what is." [36] Raphael1 13:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course, you are right. And of course there is no such thing as reverse racism. Surely not amongst the perpetrators of those rapes, who were literally quoted as saying When you are feeling down ... bash a Christian or Catholic and lift up. By the way, please show me any reference, apart from your Dr. Wise, that proves that there actually was a call to kill Lebanese. 1652186 13:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Whether the perpetrators of those rapes are racists themself is irrelevant. They are criminals and are sentenced to up to 55 years in prison. I'm sure, there have been many calls like that:

A number of the demonstrators wore clothing bearing slogans such as "We Grew Here, You Flew Here", "Wog Free Zone", "Aussie Pride", "Fuck Allah - Save 'Nulla", and "Ethnic Cleansing Unit". Chants of "Lebs out", "Lebs go home" and other expressions were continuously shouted out by many of the demonstrators, including some families with young children. A banner reading "LOCALS ONLY" with a symbol for anarchism in place of the "A" was displayed (Daily Telegraph, December 12). from 2005 Cronulla riots

"Ethnic Cleansing Unit" comes very close, don't you think? Raphael1 14:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not trying to say that. Please do not put words into my mouth. I was pointing out how to find information on Lebanese Moslem rape gangs in Cronulla. How to interpret that is another matter: whether those acts of violence happened so long ago that nobody should care anymore, or whether they are a part of a continued string of hate crimes by representatives of a specific ethnic group, or something else. I am against all violence: I find the rapes horrendous, the mob attacks on lifeguards deplorable, and the retaliations for those acts thoroughly disgusting. Weregerbil 13:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry for putting words into your mouth. Raphael1 13:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I think assuming islamophobia in the Cronulla riots is just plain wrong. I'd think if the people doing all the raping and premeditated mob violence had been Eskimo Satan worshippers or atheist Russian mafia they would have eventually gotten the community to give them the bum's rush. The community getting fed up with the crime wasn't due to their religion, it was due to the crimes. You may notice that in all the other parts of Australia where Moslems haven't been engaging in systematic premeditated group rape and mob violence there haven't been such riots. Which brings me to a concern about this article: it blindly assumes anything bad that happens to a Moslem is automatically islamophobia. In some cases nobody (except pure WP:OR) is saying islamophobia was present, in some cases random editorial speculation or someone's blog mentioning the word "islamophobia" is enough "evidence". Weregerbil 14:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

If any Muslim gets beaten-up, because some other Muslims are criminals, he gets punished for his faith, which is an islamophobic act.

If any person with a black skin gets beaten-up, because some other blacks are criminals, he gets punished for his skin color, which is a negrophobic act.

If any Jew gets beaten-up, because some other Jews are criminals, he gets punished for his faith, which is an anti-Semitic act.

Got it? Raphael1 15:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Got it. As soon as I have time I will start the article 'Christianophobia' to sum up all crimes Muslims have committed againt Christians just for being Christian.1652186 15:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

When Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo can speak about 'Christianophobia', you certainly can write an article about it.[37]Raphael1 13:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If a non-Moslem member of an ethnically Lebanese community is beaten up that is also islamophobia? Do you have evidence that the victims' religious beliefs were fist questioned and verified by the attackers so that they were certain they were attacking specifially Moslems? Did the religious beliefs rather than the (perceived) ethnicity of the victims matter? Weregerbil 15:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Religion did matter for those with their T-shirts saying "Fuck Allah - Save 'Nulla". Anyway I won't deny, that some were rather xenophobic or racist. Raphael1 20:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia and Racism are not mutally exclusive, quite the opposite. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Folks, as editors we are not to be determining what is or is not an example of islamophobia. To do this is original research. We're to write about what reputable (and notable) sources are verifiably claiming or are verifiably describing as islamophobia. Since this is true then if we are to include the Cronulla riots in this article there must be reputable (and notable) sources who are talking about them with such terminology. In reality this logic applies to all "examples" we're including (even the British National Party examples) regardless of whether or not we as individuals would refer to a given example as islamophobia or not. Netscott 15:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Both The Independent and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation are reputable and notable sources. Raphael1 09:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Your attribution of the utilization of the term islamophobia to those two news organizations appears very clueless. Where's an example of The Independent's utilization of the term? ABC was merely quoting Dr. Amanda Wise's (who is she?) use of the term. Netscott 09:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The Independent uses the term here. Dr Amanda Wise is a researcher at the MacQuarie University.[38] Raphael1 11:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I understand better now, your attribution was definitely not clueless relative to The Independent and I apologize for that mistaken characterization. I would however suggest that when you are editing/discussing the utilization of the term islamophobia you be particularly specific as to which parties are the ones utilizing it. This need is evidenced by the fact that outside of quoting Dr. Wise the Australian Broadcasting Corporation didn't use the term relative to the link currently cited in this article relative to the Sydney Race riots. Netscott 11:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no restriction to only discuss the utilization of the term Islamophobia. Instead we are certainly allowed to discuss Islamophobia itself. What evidence do you have for the "fact" you claim in your last sentence? Raphael1 12:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Well duh, look at the link itself... her quote is the only reference (in that link as I specified in my sentence) to islamophobia. Netscott 12:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I missunderstood you. I thought, that you mean the ABC doesn't use the term anywhere else. In this article, which is an interview, the term is indeed only used by Dr Amanda Wise. Raphael1 12:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Good, then I think you can understand why I sooner had the impression of cluelessness relative to your attribution of the usage of the term islamophobia to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Maybe you can find an article title (similiar to The Independent and BNP) or article (outside of an opinion piece) where ABC does use the term islamophobia relative to the Race Riots? Doing so would certainly bolster the case that the Race Riots are indeed an appropriate reference in connection to islamophobia. Netscott 12:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Would you help me with that? Raphael1 13:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• I've so far found an interesting interview with the Acting Race Discrimination Commissioner, Dr William Jonas. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission is an Australian independent statutory government body, established in 1986 by an Act of the federal Parliament, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act. They have written a paper called Islam and the Racial Discrimination Act. Raphael1 13:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Here's some: [39][40][41]. Doesn't look promising, one person in one interview mentioning "sort of climate brewing". Contrast that with all the discussion and news not mentioning islamophobia. Doesn't feel at all honest to give a Wikipedia reader the impression that the riots were islamophobia. Weregerbil 13:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Your links are not very helpful, since I certainly know how to search with google. I'd certainly consider to remove the Cornulla race riots reference, if you'd find an article citing another researcher who disagrees with Dr. Wise. Raphael1 13:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Its not very helpful because it only searches one one site, and even that provides two verifiable links. outside of Auntie, we have This, This or even this. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Re: "who disagrees with Dr. Wise": I don't think that is how Wikipedia is supposed to work... Cornulla is mentioned under a section "References in connection to Islamophobia". I think the article is flat out lying in that it unquestionably lists Cronulla as an islamophobia-connected reference. This article is built on very vague opinions and innuendo ("sort of climate brewing")... Makes me wonder if there is a real genuine concept behind it at all? If there was such vague references wouldn't be needed. This reads like some of those non-notable biographies people try to get into Wikipedia: list everything possible the person has ever done, in the hope that something might be remotely notable. The more irrelevant padding there is the less convincing it gets. Re: "not very helpful": you asked for help in finding Cronulla references on ABC, didn't you? I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, that's how I interpreted "would you help me with that" above. Weregerbil 14:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• We have a researcher connecting the Cornulla race riots to Islamophobia. What else do you need? Do you expect recordings of the mob shouting "We are islamophobic!"? Do you expect Australian mainstream media to blame the Australian public to be largely islamophobic? Raphael1 15:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• "Sort of climate brewing" is pretty vague I think... No, I do not expect a mob shouting that (what a weird thing to say I would expect). I would expect the media of a free country to discuss the concept rather extensively if it was a real concern.
• The Cronulla listing exemplifies the whole article to me. The way the article reads to me is that there is so little genuine evidence that any of this is true that even the most vague and desperate references must be included. The very first reference to the very first case in a list of alleged islamophobia is extremely tenuous at best, and is set against a history of systematic ethnically motivated rape and premeditated mob violence. Would do little to convince me any of this is true if I were looking at it for the first time right now. It just screams "this article is utter POV pushing". But you are taking the article down that road, ok.... Weregerbil 15:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Roger Hardy

I removed him from the "Characterizations" section because so far I haven't seens any evidence, that his comments in the mentioned article should be a notable definition of "islamophobia". Raphael reverted me , so now I would like to ask Raphael, if he can make it clear why this definition, that he insist on mentioning, is notable enough to be mentioned in that section. -- Karl Meier 14:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

He is the BBC's Islamic affairs Analyst, thus, his Characterization is both notable and verifiable, and wirthy of inclusion. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you really believe that one short sentence in an article about another subject should be a notable definition of "islamophobia" just because he is BBC's Islamic affairs Analyst? I don't find that very convincing. Do you have some useful sources that use or mention his definition islamophobia? -- Karl Meier 22:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)