Talk:Islamophobia/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Article is currently Western-centric and heavily prejudiced against Muslims

Currently, this article is Western-centric and gives undue weight to the sentiments of right-wing political commentators in Western Europe and America.

The bigoted opinions of some irrelevant anti-Muslim political commentators in Western Europe and USA are given undue weight in the current version of this page. Rather than explaining how Muslims suffer heavily from anti-Muslim bigotry and American imperialist policies across the world, the current version of this overtly biased article primarily focuses on how some far-right bigots in USA and Western Europe are offended by the term "Islamophobia".

I have added some templates to this page. The extreme anti-Muslim prejudice displayed in the current version of this biased article is an example of the structural Anglo-American centric systemic bias in wikipedia. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

So in order to combat "structural Anglo-American centric systemic bias" you want us to rewrite the page to focus on the United States? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Strawman question. Dont deflect.

"English Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to NPOV?

Yes, it is, especially when dealing with articles that require an international perspective."

WP:NPOVFAQ Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree on the structural issues (Anglo-American bias is practically our original sin), I question whether your remedies to those issues are appropriate. I would suggest instead of making it more about the US we maybe expand the focus to Central, South, and Southeast Asia. The fact that we don't have a section for India isn't great. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's BackI don't think an NPOV template is warranted given only one person is arguing for it. Unless you think it is. @Shadowwarrior8 There is a more appropriate one, ": may not represent a worldwide view of the subject" which is what you seem to want. Doug Weller talk 16:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I would support the replacement of NPOV with Globalize, this article has gotten over-weighted with North American and European content but I don't think that there are significant NPOV issues beyond that. So in relation to the original complaints... Yes to "Article is currently Western-centric" and no to "heavily prejudiced against Muslims" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Both templates can be inserted simultaneously. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I see no need for the article wide NPOV tag. The reason I removed the word "excessive" in the lead is that I thought it was not neutral. I'm not seeing a general problem. The globalize tag would be fine. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I also don't think the criticism tag is needed. This isn't an article about a person or organization who may face criticism. In this case I think it better to have a section on the academic debate and commentary as sprinkling it throughout the body would likely confuse. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The scope of the topic is undoubtedly broader than the information given in the current version of the article.

However, it is clear that the hysterical propaganda spread by Anglo-American military and political elites is one of the major instigators of Islamophobia across the world since the 1990s. There is no mention of this in the article. The current version of the article gives undue weight to American right-wing bigots who promulgate American war-propaganda and attempt to deny the existence of Islamophobia. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

But aren't Anglo-American military and political elites spreading hysterical propaganda typically American right-wing bigots? In which case this is due weight. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

"hysterical propaganda spread by Anglo-American military and political elites" The press has done an excellent job at spreading panic over the existential threat posed by Muslims, and the film and television industry has been dehumanising "foreigners" through its own propaganda. What makes you think that the military is calling the shots? Dimadick (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• I do think that we currently devote perhaps a bit too much space to people saying "is this really a thing tho" or the like. It's useful to compare this article to Antisemitism (an article on a very similar term, which has similarly attracted controversy from people who feel that it has recently been, in some contexts, misused, but which has only brief mentions of that dispute and covers it in much more sedate manner.) In particular I would suggest trimming or rewording the second paragraph of the lead, especially the sentence starting with For some critics...; the Debate on the term and its limitations section (especially some of the excessive quotes); the Proposed alternatives section; the Identity politics section, and the Commentary section, all of which put undue weight on the opinion of just a few scholars or commentators. We should step back and rely more on secondary sources, rather than a smattering of random opinions with no clear rationale for why they were selected. --Aquillion (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

  I think the second paragraph is quite absurd and totally inappropriate. I'm removing it from the lede. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  I personally don't think the antisemitism article is very good, but both of them definitely need an overhaul with scholarly sources, the overuse of news, op-eds, and think tanks is readily apparent from the references. (t · c) buidhe 04:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

9/11

During the 9/11 attacks, Islamophobia brought a great deal of attacks onto Muslims. 21hroush (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2024

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

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 and unjustified"

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)

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)

Irrational fear?

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)

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 and Islam 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)

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)