Talk:Islam in Europe

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Islam in Europe article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 90 days

Islam High‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Europe High‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion High‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 2 sections are present.

Wiki Education assignment: European Studies

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2022 and 29 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Freezeeverybodyclapyourhands (article contribs).

Latest revert.

@GenoV84, Any reason for your reversion, irrelevance, undue, or unneeded changes? Please provide specific examples of the "unexplained removal" that you deemed erroneous on my part. To me, all I did was adhere to the lead's summary style and structure the content to focus on important points. Also, you removed my addition in the 'Employment' section which I deem very problematic. StarkReport (talk) 21:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I just restored the Employment section. Everything else was just unnecessary and inaccurate, to say the least.... GenoV84 (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Everything else was just unnecessary and inaccurate" Well, lets tackle it one by one, 1) The quote by Scheffler seems rather unintelligible and overly metaphorical for the average reader, which is why I provided a simplified explanation of his viewpoint inline for clarity.

2) Regarding the content, "Ran Naftali, a Jewish police officer in the UK, stated---," I am not confident that a random police officer qualifies as a reliable source for such a sensitive and exceptional claim. I think this can be easily removed. So far, so good.

3) Now, finally concerning the lead For the lead's second paragraph, I aimed to make it more concise, as it felt overly verbose for a lead section(MOS:LEAD). While you may argue that "nah its length was alright." I think that it can be actually be written even move concisely than I did. Now for the most important part, the lead's problematic(NPOV) third paragraph, I don't think it's necessary to highlight every controversy upfront, especially since this isn't a critique piece but rather a general article. That's why I condensed it. Other changes I made was minor rewording of "right-wing" to "far-right" since I think it is accurate to the source appended. I also removed few sources as it was getting to excessive on the lead, you also may very well argue that it was unneeded. StarkReport (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with points 1 and 2. Regarding point 3, you said it yourself. GenoV84 (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"you said it yourself" Oh, actually, I meant the "removed few sources as it was" part. I strongly believe the rest of the changes to the lead are essential, and they shouldn't be seen as controversial, since no significant modifications or deletions were made. Could you clarify any specific concerns or disagreements regarding the rest of the changes, especially for the third paragraph? StarkReport (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The third paragraph can be moved to the Society section, there's no problem with that. Everything else was totally unneeded and I don't see the rewording that you did to the lead section as a major improvement. GenoV84 (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]