Talk:Islamophobia
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Islamophobia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 90 days ![]() |
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.
|
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Islamophobia. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Islamophobia at the Reference desk. |
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Sources for this article can be found at Talk:Islamophobia/Sources. |
Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - RPM SP 2022 - MASY1-GC 1260 200 Thu
[edit] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 February 2022 and 5 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aashima99 (article contribs).
"Irrational and unjustified"
[edit]This claim is based on the second source, that describes Islamophobia as "irrational, unjustified, or excessive". Are we just going to cherrypick the adjectives that we like? We should either mention all three adjectives or not mention them at all. Bakbik1234 (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- The lead summarizes the article. The sections discussing prejudice and racism indicate irrational and unjustified. I don't see anything that talks to excessive. Excessive suggests there is a reason for prejudice. Personally I prefer the three dictionary definitions given as cites in the lead. But then, we don't usually have cites in the lead and just summarize the body. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- The word "irrational" should clearly be removed so that Wikipedia can remain objective. It is not featured in Oxford dictionary which is the standard of the web. Dingus1233 (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Objective3000 Babik was at the time of the post topic banned from this page and although they could have made an edit request that's not one. They were then blocked indefinitely. It's rare that i would accept a dictionary as a source for meaning as they are often incomplete or, where one described archaeology as the study of the past, just wrong. Both the first and second sources back "irrational". I'd like to change the second citation to cite the original source.
- Also, as the lead is a summary of the main points in the article, and we also have a section "Irrational fear". So there is plenty of sourced material in the article to back using the word. What I suggest is removing the three dictionary definitions - they add nothing to the article that isn't better sources. That section starts "As opposed to being a psychological or individualistic phobia". Which brings up another point about words - they mean what they mean, and their meaning is not determined by their etymology. Antisemitism is not prejudice against people who speak semitic languages. Dingus is wrong in saying the Oxford dictionary should rule, and of course we don't rely on someone's opinion of what is objective but upon reliably published sources. Doug Weller talk 15:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Irrational sounds good to me. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- You mention the 'irrational fear' section, but we also have an 'origin and causes' section, which, in your view, goes against the usage of the word. Dingus1233 (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing that! Which parts of that section do you think go against an understanding of Islamophobia as irrational? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- If a cause exists, it cannot be unjustified. Also, in the article on xenophobia as a whole, the word 'irrational' is not used, so why should it be used in the case of Islamophobia? Dingus1233 (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- There is always a "cause" for prejudice. That does not mean it is justified or rational. You aren't going to get far with this argument. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- There's at least rough consensus against your position, Dingus1233. You're free to pursue some sort of dispute resolution, if you wish, but restoring your changes against consensus is disruptive. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- If a cause exists, it cannot be unjustified. Also, in the article on xenophobia as a whole, the word 'irrational' is not used, so why should it be used in the case of Islamophobia? Dingus1233 (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing that! Which parts of that section do you think go against an understanding of Islamophobia as irrational? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree to remove the irrational statement. If it is not possible, another page will need to be created. For example, no one has a "Phobia" of communism. They either oppose or support it. The articles must portray this subject more accurately. Hashanda (talk) 09:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Hashanda With respect, you are too new to understand our policies. We aren't interested in the opinion of editors, just sources and our relevant policies.. And words mean what they mean, their meaning is not determined by their etymology or antisemitism would include hatred of Arabs. I also see that at Talk Pegida you wrote "The Current Statement "Anti Islam" in the intro directs you to the Islamaphobia page. I feel this is Inaccurate and should be linked to "Islamic extremism" instead." But there aren't sources there that say Pegida is ok with non-extreme Muslims, not surprising as it is simply anti-Muslim.
- Also, if a page said Christianphobia was irrational, would you want "irrational" removed? Doug Weller talk 10:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- In my opinion, using the word 'unjustified' narrows the definition. By implication, readers might easily conclude that there also exists a 'justified' fear of Islam. Obscurasky (talk) 10:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Obscurasky and that's the problem, we don't go by editors' opinions, just reliably published sources, see WP:NOR. Doug Weller talk 11:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- To clarify, my 'opinion' relates to how the current wording might be perceived by readers. I think you'll find it is ok to express such opinions on Talk Pages. Obscurasky (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Obscurasky I am very well aware of that. But as we go by sources, hardly relevant. Doug Weller talk 14:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- To clarify, my 'opinion' relates to how the current wording might be perceived by readers. I think you'll find it is ok to express such opinions on Talk Pages. Obscurasky (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Obscurasky and that's the problem, we don't go by editors' opinions, just reliably published sources, see WP:NOR. Doug Weller talk 11:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- In my opinion, using the word 'unjustified' narrows the definition. By implication, readers might easily conclude that there also exists a 'justified' fear of Islam. Obscurasky (talk) 10:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2024
[edit]![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please added Hindu terrorism, Hindutva, and Hindu nationalism in the "See also" section of the article. As these are all Hindu fundamentalist idealogy which are noted for anti-Islamic / terror activities. 2409:40E0:1008:D849:A8B6:6253:FAD1:B80C (talk) 12:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- You need to say why?Obscurasky (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
NPOV
[edit]There are serious problems with this article. The first an main is point of view. A description of what the term refers to and how its used should be the way its introduced as opposed to stating that this is what it "is."
The problem here is that Islamophobia is inherently a political term, and in describing such, the role of wikipedia should be to describe what it means, how it's used, the context of how it came about and so on. Stating that it "is" this or that violates NPOV. The article mentions criticisms, but begins with the premise of this definition as a neutrally true fact. This type of definition doesn't belong in that ontological realm. Rather then state opinions and views as neutral facts, matters of fact should be clearly delineated and separated. Thus, for example, rather then "Islamophobia is" it should be things more like "People who use the term define it as" or even better "Has been defined by X as...". 24.185.109.34 (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think so. See WP:REFERS. Bishonen | tålk 22:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC).
Irrational fear?
[edit]Why is islamophobia considered an "(...) irrational fear of, hostility towards, or prejudice against the religion of Islam or Muslims in general." versus the definition of Christianophobia, which is defined as " (...)the fear of, hatred of, discrimination, and/or prejudice against Christians, the Christian religion, and/or its practices". Per the sources defined on the definition of Christianophobia, the word "irrational" is never mentioned, and using the same sources as that article1; article2; only merriam-webster seems to consider it an irrational fear, and as per merriam-webster own admission on other articles (example): "Dictionaries are often treated as the final arbiter in arguments over a word's meaning, but they are not always well suited for settling disputes. The lexicographer's role is to explain how words are (or have been) actually used, not how some may feel that they should be used, and they say nothing about the intrinsic nature of the thing named or described by a word, much less the significance it may have for individuals. When discussing concepts like racism, therefore, it is prudent to recognize that quoting from a dictionary is unlikely to either mollify or persuade the person with whom one is arguing.", the dictionaries role is not to mollify or persudade someones argument, but to showcase how the word has been used or is used. Another problem with the sources in this article compared to the other sources in the Christianophobia article is the TIME source, which again mentions the word irrational, but the only citation to substantiate said definition in the same paragraph leads to this article, which makes no mention of the word "irrational". To surmise my point: you have 2 sources claiming it is irrational, 2 sources which do not claim it, 1 source whici does not provide any substantiation to said claim because they are not a dictionary but a news article/source who cites a paper which contradicts said definition, and comparatively, you have 3 sources who do not use the word irrational in their definitions, the same sources which are considered viable and trustworthy in the Christianophonia article. So, 5v2 essentially, which, consequentely, by majority, means the word irrational needs to be either revised or removed, because it shows some form of bias by the lexicographers who did in fact use it. Also, from an argumentative point of view, phobia in and of itself is a medical term. The application of this word to refer to sociological concepts like islamophobia strikens the definition if previously held as "irrational". If this is the basis you're substantiating the claim, then the christianophobia article needs to be revised and the word irrational be added to that article, or removed from here. 2001:818:E94C:D00:58AD:7E62:99CC:3FD3 (talk) 02:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- The root of this problem lies in the fact that, quite simply, there's no such thing as a universally agreed definition of Islamophobia - and plenty of reliably sourced references exist to support this point too. Indeed, a sourced acknowledgment of this existed in the lead for many years ("The scope and precise definition of the term Islamophobia is the subject of debate...."), until it was recently removed by Shadowwarrior8. My suggestion would be to use a looser definition and reinstate the (perfectly reasonable) point that agreement on a precise definition does not exist. Obscurasky (talk) 14:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- The U.S government needs to adopt a legal definition of Islamophobia, a definition that doesn’t define it as irrational, hate etc., the definition now is problematic and only making the problem worse. 2601:7C0:CA80:2670:F022:C166:EBA6:60E6 (talk) 10:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- It is not a legal term. It is an anxiety disorder by definition. An irrational fear as documented in the article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- The British government has also tried, and failed, several times to establish a legal definition, but has been unable to do so. Like it or not, there's no single agreed definition to account for the phenomena and the correct encyclopaedia approach should be to acknowledge this in the lead. Obscurasky (talk) 12:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Phobia means irrational fear. See: Phobia: "A phobia is an anxiety disorder, defined by an irrational, unrealistic, persistent and excessive fear of an object or situation." Also see all the cites in the article. We go by reliable sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't want to keep banging the same drum, but the obvious point is that not all reliable sources provide the same definition - due to the simple fact that no agreed comprehensive definition exists. Obscurasky (talk) 13:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Objective3000 We don't call Islamophobia a phobia. You can't take a word apart alike that or we would call an antisemitism hatred of anyone speaking a semitic language, something I've seen antisemites do. Doug Weller talk 14:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- We certainly cannot take the word antisemitism apart as most people don't understand the meaning of semitic. Phobia is more of a medical term; although I agree that we should not use etymology as a source. I think our lead paragraph is well put as it starts with the most common definition in RS in the first sentence, talks to the most common current use in the second, and tempers it in the third with a caveat. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Is Islamiphobia in the DSM? If not, then it's not a medical term. It's a social science term. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- We certainly cannot take the word antisemitism apart as most people don't understand the meaning of semitic. Phobia is more of a medical term; although I agree that we should not use etymology as a source. I think our lead paragraph is well put as it starts with the most common definition in RS in the first sentence, talks to the most common current use in the second, and tempers it in the third with a caveat. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- People have a real fear of Muslims and Islam based on past terrorist events, that’s not irrational, unrealistic or Islamophobia. When people who have a real fear criticize Muslims and/ or Islam, it’s definitely not Islamophobia so the term is used as a hate term against people who criticize Muslims and/ or Islam to silence free speech. I would have to find the source again on concerns about the term being used to silence free speech, this is a real problem. 2601:7C0:CA80:2670:B550:75BC:DD03:BA94 (talk) 02:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- You are basically presenting the anti-Islamist perspective, while the article is supposed to present opinions on the topic based on their acceptance in reliable sources.
- I would point out by the way that fears can be irrational even if rooted in real events. While someone may have a fear of flying because of the number of planes that have crashed, it is still considered irrational if someone refuses to get on a plane or has a panic attack once it takes off. TFD (talk) 04:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- @TFD You ignored the main reason for that post so you could just talk nonsense. It looks like the main reason for it is to address the issue of the term Islamophobia (which is not a real medical condition, just a term being abused) being used to silence free speech. This talk is not to push pro/ anti muslim/ Islam agenda.
- Quote: “while Islamophobia can be an expression racism, is not ipso facto racist because neither Islam nor Muslims are a race. Islam is an idea and Muslims include people from many different races. Moreover, prejudice against Muslims can be driven by fear of Islamist extremism and by Christian and Judoist religious sectarianism – neither of which are motivated by racism.”
- petertatchellfoundation.org/mps-definition-of-islamophobia-menaces-free-speech/ 2601:7C0:CA80:2670:B550:75BC:DD03:BA94 (talk) 06:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- What do yo mean by
silence free speech
andIslam agenda
? O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC) - I wouldn't call answering your remark that fear of Muslims is irrational to be nonsense. If you don't want me to reply, don't ask questions.
- You are presenting an etymological fallacy. If you are interested in how the term was coined, phobia entered the English language centuries ago as part of the word hydrophobia, a word for rabies. In the 19th century, phobia came to mean a psychological condition that causes madness, since rabies causes madness. So Islamophobia literally means a madness caused in some people by exposure to Islam. The madness can take the form of hatred, rather than fear.
- Islamophobia is racism because it is not based on religious but by racial prejudice. Religious arguments are a rationalization for that hatred, since racism is considered unacceptable. TFD (talk) 11:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Islamophobia is most certainly not racism, because religion is not a race. Obscurasky (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- I am familiar with Islamophobic talking points. However, the article has to be based on what reliable sources say. TFD (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- But there’s no agreement amongst reliable sources (pulling my hair out).Obscurasky (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- @TFD You just love to talk don’t you? You ignored what the talking point is about again. If I wanted the history on it, I would have asked for it. Islamophobia is a fake socially engineered (not a medical condition) term and You don’t need sources to know that, and eve is right, it is also social science term (I posted a reliable source). Let’s say I criticize Muslims and Islam saying Muslims have a history of using their religion Islam and god to murder people and you TFD call me Islamophobic, well you are trying to silence my free speech criticism of Muslims and Islam using the term Islamophobic to say what I’m saying is hateful when there is no hate in what I’m saying whatsoever. 2601:7C0:CA80:2670:5D01:8326:2AE2:C35 (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- First, look up Free speech because you do not understand what it means. Second, read WP:CIV. Third, realize that Christianity has a very long history of slaughter in the name of god. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- @03000 Your talking point is also invalid as you are also off the talking point of the term Islamophobia being used to silence free speech. Wikipedia is a bias source, I will only accept outside sources. secularism.org.uk/news/2023/11/islamophobia-definitions-threaten-free-speech-at-20-universities 2601:7C0:CA80:2670:8484:122D:5F2F:9A22 (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- You don’t need sources to know that? Maybe not, but that's what Wikipedia policy requires. You and I may both know for example that the moon landing was faked, but we can't make the article say that because so-called "experts" are suppressing free speech.
- BTW, Christians (and members of other major religions) have a history of murdering people in the name of religion. Why do you think they call us crusaders? TFD (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- @TFD But can you name any other religion still murdering people in the name of their religion now? Not counting Muslims and lunatics of course. 2601:7C0:CA80:2670:8484:122D:5F2F:9A22 (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- @TFD You are off the talking point of my post. I will ask you this, do you think the term Islamophobia is used to silence free speech? 2601:7C0:CA80:2670:8484:122D:5F2F:9A22 (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- @admin can you please delete my question 23:17 20 July 2024
- as it is off the point and this post too so we can stay on talking point. Sorry, I got off to there. If you can’t because they’re connected then that’s ok. Just delete this one.
- I will keep to on the point. From now on, thanks. 2601:7C0:CA80:2670:EC9F:256A:1AF3:988C (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- @TFD You are off the talking point of my post. I will ask you this, do you think the term Islamophobia is used to silence free speech? 2601:7C0:CA80:2670:8484:122D:5F2F:9A22 (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- @TFD But can you name any other religion still murdering people in the name of their religion now? Not counting Muslims and lunatics of course. 2601:7C0:CA80:2670:8484:122D:5F2F:9A22 (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- First, look up Free speech because you do not understand what it means. Second, read WP:CIV. Third, realize that Christianity has a very long history of slaughter in the name of god. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- I am familiar with Islamophobic talking points. However, the article has to be based on what reliable sources say. TFD (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Islamophobia is most certainly not racism, because religion is not a race. Obscurasky (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- What do yo mean by
- Phobia means irrational fear. See: Phobia: "A phobia is an anxiety disorder, defined by an irrational, unrealistic, persistent and excessive fear of an object or situation." Also see all the cites in the article. We go by reliable sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- The British government has also tried, and failed, several times to establish a legal definition, but has been unable to do so. Like it or not, there's no single agreed definition to account for the phenomena and the correct encyclopaedia approach should be to acknowledge this in the lead. Obscurasky (talk) 12:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- It is not a legal term. It is an anxiety disorder by definition. An irrational fear as documented in the article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- The U.S government needs to adopt a legal definition of Islamophobia, a definition that doesn’t define it as irrational, hate etc., the definition now is problematic and only making the problem worse. 2601:7C0:CA80:2670:F022:C166:EBA6:60E6 (talk) 10:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Religions don't actually murder people, people murder people. In any case the purpose of this page is not to debate the relative merits of Islamophobia, but to ensure that the page reflects the topic as reported in reliable sources. Is there anything in this article that you think does not reflect what they say?
BTW, are you asking that your question that began this discussion thread be deleted?
TFD (talk) 11:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- @TFD I wanted the question you answered deleted so this didn’t happen. You avoided the talking point again about the term Islamophobia being used to silence free speech so you could talk crap. Do you think the term Islamophobia is used to silence free speech? 2600:1005:B009:5491:C1C0:ACAD:13B5:2B32 (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
The term Islamophobia is used to silence free speech
. I don't even know what that means. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)- @03000 I have explained it, but if you still don’t know, there is a thing called google to do research like I did. 2600:1005:B009:5491:C1C0:ACAD:13B5:2B32 (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- You have freedom of speech to say you hate or fear Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Taoists, whatever. Of course other people have the right to criticize you for this. And employers also have rights. For example, if you are a waiter and you call black customers the n-word, your boss can certainly fire you. Oddly, some people call this an abridgement of free speech. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think you’re getting off track. The focus here is if I criticize Muslims and/ or Islam and you call me Islamophobic claiming I’m being hateful and racist when I’m not just to stop me from my free speech criticism of Muslims and/ or islam. This is how the term is being abused. 2600:1005:B009:5491:C1C0:ACAD:13B5:2B32 (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Do you really think this is not happening? 2600:1005:B009:5491:C1C0:ACAD:13B5:2B32 (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand your point or how you are stopped from advancing criticism. The term antisemitism is very widely misused. (We even have an article on weaponization of antisemitism.) People misuse words all the time, and there exist a massive number of derogatory words. People also correctly use words. Whether or not a specific use of Islamophobic is misused depends on how it is used. But that doesn't mean that the words themselves violate your free speech. People have the right to be wrong. But no one has the right to be free from criticism. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- If you don’t understand then do research, you know a thing called goggle.
- I couldn’t think of that way of wording it, weaponization of the word/ term Islamophobia. I’m not saying the word/ term violates free speech but just that is abused/ weaponized to try to silence people’s free speech by claiming they’re hateful and racist. You can’t be racist against a religion, so the term needs to be removed until a better definition is made. 2601:7C0:CA80:2670:29A0:C19C:7E96:31A0 (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, we will not remove this article or the dozens of articles in the Wikipedia series on Islamophobia. In the article, see the side bar on the right of the article for the many related articles. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand your point or how you are stopped from advancing criticism. The term antisemitism is very widely misused. (We even have an article on weaponization of antisemitism.) People misuse words all the time, and there exist a massive number of derogatory words. People also correctly use words. Whether or not a specific use of Islamophobic is misused depends on how it is used. But that doesn't mean that the words themselves violate your free speech. People have the right to be wrong. But no one has the right to be free from criticism. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- You have freedom of speech to say you hate or fear Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Taoists, whatever. Of course other people have the right to criticize you for this. And employers also have rights. For example, if you are a waiter and you call black customers the n-word, your boss can certainly fire you. Oddly, some people call this an abridgement of free speech. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- @03000 I have explained it, but if you still don’t know, there is a thing called google to do research like I did. 2600:1005:B009:5491:C1C0:ACAD:13B5:2B32 (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Is Asians really just a British government expression?
[edit]Sources? Doug Weller talk 15:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller
- Islamophobia absolutely has a racist dimension, and this is very obvious in the real world. I am of the opinion that this must be mentioned in the lede. There are several academic books and sources that explain in detail about the racist dimensions of Islamophobia.
- [ Sources:
- "Islamophobia and Radicalisation" (2019), chapter 5 - "Islamophobia as New Racism", pp.
- 57–70, Author: Tahir Abbas, publisher: Oxford University Press, isbn: 9780190083410
- "Experiences of Islamophobia: Living with Racism in the Neoliberal Era" (2016), author: James Carr, publisher: Routledge, isbn: 978-1-138-85175-7
- "International Day to Combat Islamophobia 15 March", source: "un.org" website
- ]
- Hatred against Muslims is not primarily because of anti-migrant sentiment. Muslims are a minority of migrants in Europe and USA. Majority of migrants are Christians. [Source: "The Religious Composition of the World’s Migrants", Pew Research Center (19 August 2024)]
- Many migrants in the West are demonised by right-wing politicians and attacked on a racial basis by far-right armed groups. Muslims, on the other hand, are demonised by the right and attacked by the far-right forces, even if they are native to Europe. The white nationalists view Muslim natives of Europe as "Arabs" or "Turks". In their worldview, Arabs and Turks are all "subhumans" or "savages". And then they project this racism against the Muslim natives of Europe.
- This is exactly what occurred during the Bosnian genocide, when Serbian Orthodox ultra-nationalists projected their religious hatred of Muslims through racist stereotypes. The same modus operandi has been adopted by right-wing parties across Europe and USA. Of particular concern is the Republican party in the United States, which cultishly cheers on the ongoing Gaza genocide.
- Anti-semitism was a central theme of Western right-wing forces until the end of Second World War. Today, it is clear that Islamophobia has become a paranoid, racist sickness that has taken over the Western right since the end of the Cold War. There are several academic books on how medieval Christian churches falsely portrayed Islam as a "Jewish heresy" and how their belligerent doctrines have impacted contemporary Islamophobia. Today, neo-nazis and a lot of Christian nationalists have regurgitated such smears and combined their racist, anti-semitic worldview with Islamophobic sentiments.
- Sources:
- [
- "Antisemitism and Islamophobia in Europe: A Shared Story?" (2017), editors: James Renton & Ben Gidley, publisher: Springer, isbn: 978-1-137-41299-7
- "Anti-semitism and Islamophobia: Hatreds Old and New in Europe" (2007), author: Matti Bunzl, publisher: Prickly Paradigm Press, isbn: 978-0976147589
- ] Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- It does have a racist dimension, without a doubt. But that doesn’t answer my question. Doug Weller talk 18:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller
- Oh, I thought you asked the question in relation to Islamophobia and racism.
- Btw, "Asian" is a classification in several countries, such as the United States, Australia, Canada, and others.
- For example, United States Census Bureau describes "Asian" as:
[Source: "About the Topic of Race", website: United States Census Bureau website] Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)"A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam."
- Asian in the UK means from India, Pakistan or Bangladesh. People from China and Japan are considered East Asians. TFD (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- It does have a racist dimension, without a doubt. But that doesn’t answer my question. Doug Weller talk 18:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Article has lost its way
[edit]There is no single agreed detailed-definition of Islamophobia. [1] This is a fact, but more than that, it's a crucial backdrop against which anyone seeking greater understanding needs to view the subject. But would anyone reading this article be aware of this context? I doubt it. Many editors here seem to be pushing 'cast-iron' claims on the basis that they have citations. Verifiability is vital, of course, but where there are differing or conflicting citations, we don't just get to pick the one we prefer, nor do we get to combine them, pick-n-mix style, to come up with more comprehensive claims either. Take the opening sentence. It's presented to readers as some kind of agreed and indisputable fact, but it isn't. It's derived by combining 5 different definitions (incidentally, one is a college website and three are dictionaries, which are not ideal as citations). Most don't use the word irrational, which could be an indication that they don't consider it always to be so, yet there is is in the opening to this article. It's not helpful, and it isn't encyclopaedic either. Obscurasky (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's a summary of various definitions. Typically, in social sciences, there will be various definitions, but they tend to agree on some factors. TFD (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Apparently, the "Christianophobia" page gives a "single agreed detailed-definition".
- The tired-old narratives of Western right-wing commentators and political apologists actually have no place in the lede at all. They are only attempting to engage in anti-Muslim hatred through linguistic abuse and obfuscation of terminology. A phobia is by definition "irrational". One of the central claims of Islamophobes is that their fear of Islam is "rational". Only an Islamophobe would have a problem with the description of his paranoid hate as "irrational fear".
- This is a page which focuses on explaining the hatred against Muslims and the persecution of Muslims by proponents of such vicious sentiments. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Shadowwarrior8 The problem is that words mean what they mean, you can't say that because a word has phobia in it than it must be a phobia. Another example is antisemitism. Your way of interpreting islamophobia would mean that antisemitism means being anti semitic speaking people. It doesn't, it's specifically about Jews. Doug Weller talk 08:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Several academic and encyclopaedic sources describe Islamophobia as an irrational fear directed against Muslims.
- Also, one of the fundamental beliefs of Islamophobes is that "fear of Islam and Muslims" is "rational", and they then attempt to rationalise bigotry against Muslims in front of the wider society. This is a major part of their rhetoric and conspiracy theories.
- If the key fact that their paranoia is irrational gets omitted, this would result in the dissemination of an Islamophobic POV. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Several do, but many seemingly disagree and we don't get to choose the sources we like. Obscurasky (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Obscurasky, I might be reading this wrong, but it seems like you're advocating for content that addresses “rational” hostility/critique/hate/distrust—whatever we call it—regarding Islam and Muslims. However, we already have dozens of articles that deal in this area such as: "Criticism of Islam," "Criticism of Islamism," "Islamic extremism," "Islamic fundamentalism," etc. Isn't the "Islamophobia" article specifically reserved for irrational hatred and bigotry rooted in disinformation and false stereotypes?
- Omitting 'irrational' risks legitimizing biased perspectives, which contradicts the objective purpose of the article. StarkReport (talk) 09:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Firstly, I am advocating an unbiased and encyclopaedic summary of the subject. If not all reliable sources agree on the use of the term 'irrational', it's wrong to present it as a universally agreed terminology. Secondly, I probably shouldn't have used that single example, as the point I was making was a wider one and the article includes many examples of editors pushing disputed claims as fact. My last edit was to remove a claim that Islamophobia is primarily a form of racial bigotry. Now, whether you agree with that or not, it's clear that there is no consensus for that statement, but my edit was reverted on the grounds that 'it had a citation' (fortunately that revert was also reverted by someone else). Obscurasky (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Obscurasky,
"If not all reliable sources agree on the use of the term 'irrational'"
maybe not every source may use this definition. From my impression, it appears that those polemical sources which challenge the term "Islamophobia" and argue that it is rational are often the same ones that claim the term is used to stifle criticism of Islam by blurring the line between racism and critique of religious beliefs. Since we've already addressed these views in the lead's third paragraph, it's clear that we've already informed readers at the outset that the definition of "Islamophobia" is not universally agreed, thereby adhering to encyclopedic balance. StarkReport (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)- You said: "One of the central claims of Islamophobes is that their fear of Islam is "rational." - It has some truth, but I don't fully agree with that. Some people hate Muslims just because they are Muslims or simply because they belong to a different religion. Do you think the world is educated enough about Islam for everyone to develop rational opinions? Even more than half of the Muslim population is not properly educated on Islam, let alone the rest of the world. Most of Islamophobia stems from stereotypes, which are indeed irrational and sad. But I also agree with Doug that "words mean what they mean, you can't say that because a word has 'phobia' in it, it must be a phobia." What about those properly educated individuals who do develop (not all) rational reservations about Islam and, by default, practicing Muslims? Should they not be called Islamophobes? How will you differentiate between an irrational Islamophobe and a rational critique? The word is used for everyone who is against Islam. It has also taken on a racial meaning in modern times when Islam is not even a race (exceptional reasons for inclusion don't matter either). As per me, 'Irrational' should be omitted from the lede. DangalOh (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- The etymology came up before. The term was copied from hydrophobia, which is an older name for rabies. Just as rabies makes one become irrational, so does Islamophobia, which is primarily a hatred of Muslims. TFD (talk) 04:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Are you implying that Islamophobia is akin to a disease like rabies, which renders people irrational? Do you have any medical sources to support this claim ? In contrast, Winston Churchill, in The River War (1899), likens Islam itself to rabies. But Churchill was also not a doctor, so let’s refrain from labeling what is and isn’t a disease. Additionally, it’s important to note that one can oppose or criticize Islam without targeting or hating Muslims, yet still be branded as an Islamophobe. Furthermore, if Islamophobia were racially motivated, ex-Muslims would still face Islamophobia, as one cannot change their race by leaving Islam. However, this is not typically the case. Actually, rather than omitting the term 'irrational,' it might be more constructive to present perspectives on how both rational and irrational fear may be classified as Islamophobia. You could also include a third perspective on race, although it's unclear which race. As of now, the article is trying to label any critique of Islam and muslims as irrational because, ultimately, all critiques are more or less labeled as Islamophobic by multiple sources. DangalOh (talk) 05:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- The etymology came up before. The term was copied from hydrophobia, which is an older name for rabies. Just as rabies makes one become irrational, so does Islamophobia, which is primarily a hatred of Muslims. TFD (talk) 04:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- You said: "One of the central claims of Islamophobes is that their fear of Islam is "rational." - It has some truth, but I don't fully agree with that. Some people hate Muslims just because they are Muslims or simply because they belong to a different religion. Do you think the world is educated enough about Islam for everyone to develop rational opinions? Even more than half of the Muslim population is not properly educated on Islam, let alone the rest of the world. Most of Islamophobia stems from stereotypes, which are indeed irrational and sad. But I also agree with Doug that "words mean what they mean, you can't say that because a word has 'phobia' in it, it must be a phobia." What about those properly educated individuals who do develop (not all) rational reservations about Islam and, by default, practicing Muslims? Should they not be called Islamophobes? How will you differentiate between an irrational Islamophobe and a rational critique? The word is used for everyone who is against Islam. It has also taken on a racial meaning in modern times when Islam is not even a race (exceptional reasons for inclusion don't matter either). As per me, 'Irrational' should be omitted from the lede. DangalOh (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Obscurasky,
- Firstly, I am advocating an unbiased and encyclopaedic summary of the subject. If not all reliable sources agree on the use of the term 'irrational', it's wrong to present it as a universally agreed terminology. Secondly, I probably shouldn't have used that single example, as the point I was making was a wider one and the article includes many examples of editors pushing disputed claims as fact. My last edit was to remove a claim that Islamophobia is primarily a form of racial bigotry. Now, whether you agree with that or not, it's clear that there is no consensus for that statement, but my edit was reverted on the grounds that 'it had a citation' (fortunately that revert was also reverted by someone else). Obscurasky (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Several do, but many seemingly disagree and we don't get to choose the sources we like. Obscurasky (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- These are strawman allegations and un-civilized rhetoric which do not belong in the talk page. This page has nothing to do with "Criticism of Islam" and you have no reliable sources for any of your fringe, red flag claims. This page is focused on explaining hatred and violence directed against Muslims by various extremist forces such as Christian nationalists, neo-nazis, Hindutva fundamentalists, etc.
- Winston Churchill himself was a racist, anti-semitic, anti-Muslim, British colonialist and mass-murderer. Quoting his bigoted statements tells volumes about yourself. On top of that, you are even attempting to push the anti-Muslim narrative that Islamophobic hatred is "rational"!
- These type of hateful and unpleasant comments do not belong in the talk page. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 12:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- And now comes the personal attack on my character(as well as Churchill's) because I quoted Churchill in response to an original claim. Anyway, sorry. I didn't know this page was supposed to be a sanctuary for people persecuted or harassed by the above-mentioned groups and should not be meddled with. Okay, got it. I don't know why I even bother explaining anything to emotionally charged people. Do as you wish. Also, I never mentioned that Islamophobic hate is rational. But you do seem to suggest that even criticism of Islam is irrational. My point was that sources don’t differentiate, so we shouldn’t either. Or stop calling people who even questions islam as an Islamophobe. Stop throwimg around the word so casually. Maybe people will buy into your definition then. For now, I agree with Doug. Anyway, I am done here. You already did my character assassination. DangalOh (talk) 12:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment on content, not the contributor. I did not engage in any form of "character assassination".
- Criticizing problematic comments and bad editorial conduct has nothing do with adhominem behaviour. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- And now comes the personal attack on my character(as well as Churchill's) because I quoted Churchill in response to an original claim. Anyway, sorry. I didn't know this page was supposed to be a sanctuary for people persecuted or harassed by the above-mentioned groups and should not be meddled with. Okay, got it. I don't know why I even bother explaining anything to emotionally charged people. Do as you wish. Also, I never mentioned that Islamophobic hate is rational. But you do seem to suggest that even criticism of Islam is irrational. My point was that sources don’t differentiate, so we shouldn’t either. Or stop calling people who even questions islam as an Islamophobe. Stop throwimg around the word so casually. Maybe people will buy into your definition then. For now, I agree with Doug. Anyway, I am done here. You already did my character assassination. DangalOh (talk) 12:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Shadowwarrior8 The problem is that words mean what they mean, you can't say that because a word has phobia in it than it must be a phobia. Another example is antisemitism. Your way of interpreting islamophobia would mean that antisemitism means being anti semitic speaking people. It doesn't, it's specifically about Jews. Doug Weller talk 08:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
This was just reverted as not being in the three sources
[edit][2]. User:Shadowwarrior8 this is your edit, are you claiming it is? Doug Weller talk 15:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. @Doug Weller
- Also, I dont get the title. It was contents associated with one source (with wrong page number). I moved it to the 4th para and fixed the reference page. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- "It has been alleged, often by right-wing commentators, that the term is sometimes used to avoid criticism of Islam". Firstly, I don't think it's helpful to politicise the issue like this, particularly as Wikipedia is aimed at an international audience, not a British one. As for the claim specifically, I question that it's 'often right-wing' commentators making it (more than any other group) and would like to see evidence that this really is the case. Obscurasky (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Your removal of that clause was appropriate. I do not see that in either of the sources given. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- "It has been alleged, often by right-wing commentators, that the term is sometimes used to avoid criticism of Islam". Firstly, I don't think it's helpful to politicise the issue like this, particularly as Wikipedia is aimed at an international audience, not a British one. As for the claim specifically, I question that it's 'often right-wing' commentators making it (more than any other group) and would like to see evidence that this really is the case. Obscurasky (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- C-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in Society and social sciences
- C-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Society and social sciences
- C-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences
- C-Class Islam-related articles
- Mid-importance Islam-related articles
- WikiProject Islam articles
- C-Class Religion articles
- Mid-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- C-Class Discrimination articles
- Mid-importance Discrimination articles
- WikiProject Discrimination articles