Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Islamophobia/Archive 1

Procedural comments

I noticed that at least two personss withdrew themselves from the initially suggested list of persons involved. Am I right to assume that by doing so they implicitely agreed not to interfere with the results of the mediation? Mukadderat 17:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin and Mikkalai have both indicated that they are no longer involved in the dispute, and have withdrawn. Although they haven't 'agreed' to anything (and mediation and the results are entirely voluntary), I would hope they'd respect any consensus that develops as a comprimise out of this nediation, given they have self-'withdrawn' from the dispute. I extend an invitation to them to add comments on the talk page during the mediation, if they please. Cheers, Daniel 05:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not currently have a reliable internet connection. I expect this situation to continue until August 2, 2007. Will this mediation continue until then and how will my status affect things? I am not inclined to accept the results of the mediation unless I have the opportunity to participate.Umer Al-Amerikee 20:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Where to have mediation

Should we have private mediation, or would it be okay to occur on this talk page? MessedRocker (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Would prefer mediation to be on this talk page instead off-wiki. Addhoc 19:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

On wikipedia--Sefringle^Talk 03:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

here sounds good. ITAQALLAH 15:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

As we begin, I would like to ask that each of you prepare a short summary of the events that happened which culminated in this request for mediation. MessedRocker (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Not much to say, beyond there is lack of agreement over the items listed under "Issues to be mediated".--Addhoc 09:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

How I believe things should be handled

Based on the points listed in "issues to be mediated", I have come up with my personal answers.

• Is the definition of Islamophobia deemed controversial? If by "controversial" you mean "varies from source to source", then the good news is that Wikipedia does not have to take one version of the story and stick to it; you could note that the definitions vary and then report who said what in regards to defining it.
• How to best phrase the opening sentence. What's wrong with the current "Islamophobia is a controversial term that refers to prejudice or discrimination against Islam or Muslims."?
• Weight distribution with regards to criticism. Coverage should be proportional to the amount of attention received, measured in the form of published items. Say a major event happens involving alleged Islamophobia, and the fact that people are reacting to the idea of it being Islamophobic gets it plenty of press attention, such as the Muhammad comics controversy -- that could easily warrant a section. A criticism in a major publication, with not much more than that, could get a paragraph or so.
• Size and focus of the criticisms section. I feel the focus of the controversy section is best embodied in its current opening paragraph: The concept of Islamophobia has been criticized on several grounds. Some critics argue that it is real, but is just another form of racism and does not require its own category, while others argue that, unlike racism, Islam is a religion that people can choose to adopt, to retain or to leave or apostatize. Others argue that it is used to censor criticism and that its use threatens free speech. The article should then give details that support that thesis - that Islamophobia is just a part of racism, or that it's used to scare people. Attribute statements, source them, etc.
• Use of Rowan Atkinson and other personalities as critics of Islamophobia. If I am not mistaken, this is regarding quoting what celebrities said about Islamophobia. Right now, the mention of him is given his due weight: a tiny paragraph, as what he said is not major. As for using entertainers and the like as critics, as I said, if they've said something notable (there's an article published on it), then it could be mentioned. Just don't put so much weight on it.
• Use of the word "alleged" throughout the article. The word alleged is such a lovely word because it can take a judgmental sentence and turn it into an ambiguous accusation allowing room for innocent. For example, consider the difference between "murderer" and "alleged murderer". Just murderer makes it set and define that that guy did it, whereas alleged murderer means that people think they did it but possibly not as it was only said. My point is -- use it carefully. You cannot turn a biased statement neutral by plugging in that it's merely alleged. Let me break it down by use:
  • "By ignoring non-violent examples of alleged Islamophobia, Malik's commentary 'makes a mockery of victims of prejudice by pretending they have not been discriminated against,' according to Bunglawala." This would be better phrased as "By ignoring the non-violent events which (person) said were Islamophobic,(source)..."
  • "The statement alleged that 'Islamism is a reactionary ideology that kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present.'" Perfectly acceptable use.
  • Section header "Efforts against alleged Islamophobia" -- I don't think this is right. They are not fighting against what is alleged to be Islamophobic, but rather, they're fighting against it. "Efforts against Islamophobia" would be better. Remember, we're not calling anything Islamophobic when we remove alleged from the title.
  • "There have been efforts against alleged Islamophobia by many organizations in many countries; some of these are detailed below." How about "...efforts against events considered to be Islamophobic, and Islamophobia in general...", as per above.
  • As for the rest of the usages, they seem fine. However, consider using synonyms of alleged.

Does this to help solve any problems? MessedRocker (talk) 08:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The current definition is to too wordy - an improvement would be "Islamophobia is prejudice or discrimination against Islam or Muslims." Addhoc 12:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your feedback Messedrocker, i'll address the points in the order that they've been raised:

1. the definition does not appear to be controversial, sources are pretty unanimous on what the word Islamophobia denotes i.e. that it means prejudice or discrimination against Islam/Muslims.
2. the second point relates to the first. it isn't the term/definition that's controversial; it's the application. we can and should be quite unequivocal in stating what Islamophobia refers to.
3. weight distribution with regards to criticism i think pertains to the lead. we mention the same argument of critics twice, and again, most academic sources really don't paint the issue in as much controversy as we are doing.
4. the criticism section should be proportional to its prominence as per WP:UNDUE. the article IMO dedicates far too mcuh prominence (it comes before the section actually documenting instances of Islamophobia) and weight to the criticism section, with significant text devoted to each and every personality with a negative view available - even if their arguments are virtually the same.
5. the problem is that Rowan Atksinson wasn't even talking with any specificity about Islamophobia, so his words cannot be construed in that light.
6. i don't believe words like "alleged" should be used if we have reliable sources confirming an incident was fueled by Islamophobic sentiments, in the same way we wouldn't say "allegedly racially motivated attack", or "allegedly antisemitic comments". some uses of alleged are clearly appropriate, but others aren't quite so. ITAQALLAH 14:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Alright.
2. Yes — what I am thinking is that the first paragraph should be devoted to defining Islamophobia concrete, and then judging what goes in the article thereafter based on that.
3. Well the point of a lead section as you know is to function as a summary version of a more thorough version below. Mentioning the same stuff twice is just silly -- it'd be more effective to say "There are arguments including that ___" (which would list generalities) and then thoroughly discuss the arguments in the appropriate sections.
4. If there has been more arguments over the term than actual instances of such a thing, then of course it would be obvious for the criticism section to be longer. I, however, don't know if that's the case. If there is redundancy, then the most authoritative flavor of the argument should be kept and the clones deleted. That is just for the sake of brevity.
5. Then it shouldn't be put in the article.
6. That is true, but it must be concretely considered to be Islamophobic. How? Let's say for example you're describing a case in which a man beats up a Muslim which gets major attention. If the assaulter gets convicted of hate crimes, then it can safely be considered Islamophobic. If there are commentators calling an event Islamophobic, then the term 'alleged' can be used as they aren't the ones who can prove it. If there's no direct reference to Islamophobia, it shouldn't belong at all.

MessedRocker (talk) 16:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Islamophobia

MessedRocker, I think I agree with all of what you said. The biggest issue I have is that, since reliable sources have criticised this term and disagreed on its meaning, therefore it must be mentioned right away in the first sentence. The first sentence as it is is correct "is a controversial term" - because this is what it is exact. A term is controversial when reliable sources have disagreed on its meaning. If you give its one-sided meaning in the first sentence, thats unfair because it appears as if its an undisputed term agreed on by all the reliable sources when its not the case. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

ItaqAllah, you're wrong. Dont give intentional false statements. You said: "sources are pretty unanimous on what the word Islamophobia denotes" This is not true. From the refs of just some of the reliable sources:

• "This term is a fabricated and question-begging linguistic manoeuvre"
• "There really isn't a phenomena like "Islamophobia"

Tell me people, if Oompa Loompa is defined by some as a blue spaceship in the sky, and critics claim that its a hoax and doesnt exist, is it okay to tell readers that "Oompa Loompa is a blue spaceship in the sky" ? I dont think so. This is giving people the impression that this object definitely exists, when this is not the case. Since some people say that Islamophobia doesnt exist and some say it does, we should take the approach to the article God. The article doesnt say God exists. Its says quite appropriately:

God, most commonly refers to the deity worshipped by followers of monotheistic and monolatrist religions, whom they believe to be the creator and ruler of the universe.

This is about how you to have to word it. You have to make it clear that, this is something that some people believe it exists and some believe that it doesnt exist. No matter what words you use (controversial is one option), you have to make it clear that the existence of the word is disputed. You cant obviously say in the God article "God is the being which created this Universe" - this is not something which everyone agrees on and similiarly for the Islamophobia example. Again, I think MessedRocker has given very reasonable input here. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

We can definitely state it is a word, because it just is. However, whether or not the concept actually exists is disputed and should be pointed out. I propose The word Islamophobia denotes a prejudice or discrimination against Muslims and Islam, though its status as a form of prejudice is disputed. MessedRocker (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Matt57, i think your comments are non sequitur. nobody will dispute what the word god means. see Antisemitism, and Racism. there are many instances where these words are incorrectly used, that doesn't mean they are "controversial" or that they no longer constitute prejudice. i'm not convinced that scholarly sources dispute its status as a form of prejudice (that naturally doesn't include political commentators). the Encyclopedia of Race and Ethnic studies states (p. 218, Routledge 2003), "The Runnymede Trust has been successful in that the term Islamophobia is now widely recognized and used, though many right-wing commentators either reject its existence or argue that it is justified." ITAQALLAH 19:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Something doesn't have to be controversial because scholars disagree - even though the scholars use it, there is a significant faction who disagree with the idea of the term: the right-wing commentators. MessedRocker (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

i believe the opposition is significant enough to mention in the lead. is it significant enough, however, to merit mention in the very first sentence? IMO, no. so the first clause of the sentence is fine, but i think the second is an overstatement. i would expect at least some sort of dispute within the academic community itself for a first-sentence mention that its status as a form of prejudice is disputed, especially considering that it appears to be widely accepted in general. ITAQALLAH 20:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes its necessary to mention it in the first statement. People should know that not everyone agrees with the term. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

don't they agree it means "prejudice or discrimination against Muslims and Islam"? ITAQALLAH 20:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

They said the term doesnt exist and is a myth. How should that be dealt with? Obviously in the first sentence. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

well, the term does exist. you can find it in the dictionary. do they say prejudice against Islam and Muslims doesn't exist? i'm not so sure. a note to MessedRocker: this has already been discussed extensively here and elsewhere (see links on main mediation page) ITAQALLAH 20:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

See above. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

First off, I want to know exactly what is controversial about Islamophobia. Is it the very concept? the naming? the application? Controversial here defined as "people disagree over it", regardless of what merit they have, as long as it's published. MessedRocker (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think everything is. I'll reproduce some of the alternative opinions about this term:

• Historian Victor Davis Hanson: "There really isn't a phenomena like "Islamophobia" - at least no more than there was a "Germanophobia" in hating Hitler or "Russiaphobia" in detesting Stalin." - The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) By Robert Spencer, ISBN 0895260131, Regnery Publishing, Pg. 200
• "All this indicates that "Islamophobia" is virtually useless as an analytical tool. To adopt it is to accept the most virulent form of theological equivalence, and to affirm, against all the evidence, that every religious tradition is equally capable of inspiring violence." - The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) By Robert Spencer, ISBN 0895260131, Regnery Publishing, Pg. 199
• "This term is a fabricated and question-begging linguistic manoeuvre designed to present the protection of religious sensibilities as a civil liberty issue." - The "Islamophobia" scam, Oliver Kamm
• "The pseudo-psychiatric term Islamophobia is a statement that any criticism of Muslims is evidence of clinical pathology. Yet the label is often attached to valid criticisms of particular Muslims whose behaviour has laid them open to legitimate censure." - David Green, Bad Faith VI
• "The trouble with the idea is that it confuses hatred of, and discrimination against, Muslims on the one hand with criticism of Islam on the other." Malik, Kenan. "Islamophobia Myth", Prospect, February 2005.
• "Islamophobia", a wretched concept that confuses criticism of Islam as a religion and stigmatisation of those who believe in it." Rushdie, Salman et al. "Writers' statement on cartoons", BBC News, March 1, 2006.

So people have said that its a myth, its a term that doesnt exist and its a wrong concept which confuses the criticism of Islam with some sort of racist hatred of Muslims. If you approach this issue with the blue spaceship example I gave, that parable might be helpful in coming to a conclusion. Some people are saying the spaceship exists and others are saying it doesnt. So for sure this is a controversial term. I dont know how else we can better put it, but the first sentence should make it clear that this is a muddy term which many people disagree with in every way (denying its existence and criticising its application). --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

in fairness to Kenan Malik, he doesn't claim Islamophobia is a myth per se, he says that it is sometimes used wrongly and the scale of anti-Muslim prejudice is at times exaggerated (not that anti-Muslim prejudice doesn't exist). ITAQALLAH 15:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

So if I have it straight, the word exists yet the concept of Islamophobia is disputed. As I said above, the neutral way to approach this would be to have the opening sentence or paragraph talk about the word, not the concept. MessedRocker (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

i can agree with that. the first paragraph can be about the word, and thus we can move the definitions paragraph (currently the second one) up to the first para, and thus delay any critique or objection for the next paragraph, which can be about the differing views of the concept/usage itself. ITAQALLAH 15:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be strange to somehow separate the word from the concept. Islamophobia is word and a concept and it has been criticized by many notable voices. This makes it controversial, and I believe the opening sentence should reflect that reality. Also the term itself has also been criticized, as Matt57 has already pointed out above: "This term is a fabricated and question-begging linguistic manoeuvre designed to present the protection of religious sensibilities as a civil liberty issue." -- Karl Meier 17:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Karl. How can the word be separated from the concept? No one is saying the word Islamophobia doesnt exist. People are using it now so it exists. Its the concept thats disputed, its meaning, which is what a word is all about. The strong dispute about the meaning of the word and its usage should be made clear in the first sentence somehow. People have said this is a fabricated misleading term. I'm sure there's a way to word the first sentence better. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is what is not disputed: Islamophobia is a word defined as prejudice or discrimination against Muslims or Islam. Here is what is disputed: the application of that word and the existence of the concept embodied by that word. These disputes have come about because there are people who feel that it is an excuse to criticize people who have legitimate criticism of Islam. Some feel that it is overused, while people feel it doesn't exist at all and it's just a pejorative to bring out at Islam critics. Now how do we work this into an opening sentence or possibly an opening paragraph? MessedRocker (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

here is my preferred version:

Islamophobia refers to prejudice or discrimination against Islam or Muslims. The term dates back to the late 1980s, but came into common currency after the September 11, 2001 attacks. In 1997, the British Runnymede Trust defined Islamophobia as the "dread or hatred of Islam and therefore, to the fear and dislike of all Muslims," stating that it also refers to the behaviour of excluding Muslims from the "economic, social, and public life of the nation." It includes the perception that Islam has no values in common with other cultures, is inferior to the West, is a violent political ideology rather than a religion, that its criticisms of the West have no substance, and that discriminatory practices against Muslims are justified.

Although the term has gained wide acceptance since used by the Runnymede Trust,(1) opponents of the concept have argued that it is often misused to undermine criticism directed against Islam. British academic and writer Kenan Malik, for instance, writes that the term is often used to silence critics of the religion, or even Muslims seeking reform. Novelist Salman Rushdie and others signed a manifesto entitled Together facing the new totalitarianism in March 2006 similarly criticizing the concept of Islamophobia.

(1) is substantiated by the above quote from the Encyclopedia of Race and Ethnic studies. ITAQALLAH 01:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that the lead being used in the article currently? MessedRocker (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

the main difference with the current version is that the opening sentence is simpler, and the mention of controversy/opposition has been deferred to the second paragraph and the repetition in arguments has been trimmed. the material about how it came into usage, and how the Runnymede Trust defined it, has been moved up to the first paragraph. ITAQALLAH 00:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think its the very meaning and concept of the term that is disputed:

"This term is a fabricated and question-begging linguistic manoeuvre designed to present the protection of religious sensibilities as a civil liberty issue." - The "Islamophobia" scam, Oliver Kamm

Some people have criticised its application, while others have attacked its very meaning and concept and therefore the word "controversial" is befitting in the opening sentence. This is one alternative. Another alternative is saying something like :

• "Islamophobia is a term defined by its proponents as prejudice or discrimination against Islam or Muslims"

If we do what Itaqallah is wanting to do, then that implies that the term is accepted by everyone and thats not the case so we have to let the user know of this in the first sentence. The best way to do this is to leave in the word controversial, as it is now. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

the term might very well be a neologism ("fabricated", as Kramm puts it), but does anyone actually dispute that "Islamophobia" refers to "anti-Muslim/Islam sentiment" or something like that? i see no evidence that the meaning itself is controversial, because then we would see people saying Islamophobia doesn't actually mean "anti-Muslim/Islam sentiment". "defined by its proponents" is unduly weasly, the term has been well accepted (per EoRE). the basis of the opposition, acording to the Encyclopedia of Race and Ethnic studies, is that the opponents believe it either "reject its existence or argue that it is justified." ITAQALLAH 02:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'll give the example of God. No one is saying that God doesnt mean creator of the universe, but there are people who believe in the phenomena and others who dont. This is the same case with the term Islamophobia. No one is saying that this term's dictionary meaning is "apples and oranges", but many people are attacking and criticizing the term and they dont believe in it. They say its a myth. In the light of all this, controversial is the least aggressive thing to do here and you're not happy even with that? The God article says:

God most commonly refers to the deity worshipped by followers of monotheistic and monolatrist religions, whom they believe to be the creator and ruler of the universe.

The same case should be followed for Islamophobia. You can say something like what I proposed "Islamophobia is a term defined by its proponents ......". These are two very similar parallel examples and Islamophobia should be dealt with in the same way. Some people believe it exists, some don't, and therefore, the least you can you is call it controversial. The better solution that I think is to add the word proponents. Some people beleive that the phenomena that this term is refering to doesnt exist and some people believe in it and so like in the case if God, you have to make that clear that this is something not believed in by everyone, as reliable sources are calling it a myth and a fabrication. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The dictionary definition does not appear to be disputed, however the concept and the ideology around the word is. Nonetheless, the proponents would prefer to be identified with the word than the people against it, so listing that the word is defined by the proponents may be a good idea. MessedRocker (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"defined by its proponents" doesn't make any sense, as long as there is no different definition of that word. To use your God analogy: Myth is no different definition of God, even though there are people who don't believe in a creator or ruler of the universe. --Raphael1 15:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"No one is saying that God doesnt mean creator of the universe" - exactly, the term "God" isn't controversial (we all know what it's generally supposed to refer to), it's the concept of God which is controversial. i believe you are confusing the distinction between term and concept. MessedRocker, the clause "defined by its proponents" had previously been resisted because it sounded unduly weasly. do the antagonists not define it like that? if they don't, how do they define it? if they do define it this way, then it's not merely the proponents who agree upon the definition of the term "Islamophobia". ITAQALLAH 15:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"proponents" is not weasely wording. See, these two statements are similiar, as opening sentences of the articles:

- Islamophobia is a term that refers to prejudice or discrimination against Islam or Muslims.

- God is a term that refers to the creator of the Universe.

Read these two lines carefully. See the problem here? Both of these statements would be incorrect as opening sentences of an article. Not everyone believes that God exists. Not everyone beleives that Islamophobia exists. How are you going to deal with this then? The usage of the term proponents (like believers in the case of God). Raphael, there are no two different definations of God as well. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

if "proponents" is not weasel wording, please explain how "non-proponents" define Islamophobia. the dictionary definition remains the same. equating God with Islamophobia is a false analogy, the latter is a topic grounded in academic studies (social sciences) and accepted in scholarship (as confirmed by a reliable source). the opening sentence of God is "God most commonly refers to the deity worshipped by followers of monotheistic and monolatrist religions...". what 'god' means/refers to isn't particularly disputed "... whom they believe to be the creator and ruler of the universe." - this is the concept of God, which is different from what the word 'god' means. please note this distinction. ITAQALLAH 12:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

How about The term Islamophobia refers to the controversial concept of prejudice or discrimination of Islam or Muslims. MessedRocker (talk) 04:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I think this is the best version and should satisfy everyone. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

i believe it is unduly speculative, the word is well established and used. the first sentence needs to provide the definition (and unequivocally IMO). "Islamophobia (means/is defined as/refers to) prejudice or discrimination against Islam or Muslims" ITAQALLAH 12:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt57 claimed that my latest proposal should satisfy everyone, yet it doesnt: Itaqallah argued that to refer to it as controversial in the opening sentence is inappropriate as it is a well-established word. While it may be an established word, it is not without its controversies. But is the controversy significant enough to warrant an allusion in the opening sentence?

Like Islamophobia, evolution is a widely-accepted concept that's not without its controversy. Yet the lead sentence makes no reference to such controversy: In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation. In fact, the evolution article makes no reference to it being controversial until half-way down in the article. What makes Islamophobia different from evolution in that controversy must be alluded to in the first sentence? MessedRocker (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The somewhat obvious response is that Islamophobia isn't found in psychology text books. Regardless, I consider that "Islamophobia is prejudice or discrimination of Islam or Muslims" would be in accordance with NPOV policy, while the additional verbage implies a lack of neutrality. Addhoc 13:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no big controversy about evolution as defined in the article. There are strong proofs that small biological change (which is what the article is talking about) exists. No creationists denies that. What creationists say is that man did not evolve from apes. But why dont you look at the God example? What makes Islamophobia different from God that a separation is not necessary for those who believe Islamophobia exists or is a valid term, and those who accept the term? If you just read the article, there are so many people talking against this word and shunning it - is that not true? That needs to be made clear. The term Islamophobia refers to the controversial concept is appropriate. ItaqAllah, the word GOD is also well established and used for that matter, but its opening sentence makes it clear that this word is used by its believers to define who created the universe. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

i believe this has been responded to above. ITAQALLAH 15:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Islamophobia is only a controversial concept to a fringe group, which is why I reject MessedRockers suggestion. Please note, that even one of those four listed "critics", Malik Kenan, defines Islamophobia as "irrational hatred of Islam" [1]. --Raphael1 15:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Raphael: It seems that the sources used in the article suggest otherwise. As for the lead, I believe the one that we have now in the article, is what is most neutral and acceptable. -- Karl Meier 16:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see discussion on talk page , I would say that we need to label Antisemitism and Christianophobia 'controversial' by the same logic. (someone was kind enough to provide requested sources). --Shipmaster 14:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

again, we have a significant opinion in the form of opposition to the concept. that doesn't mean, however, that the definition of the word itself is disputed.

it is important to note that throughout this extensive discussion, it has not been shown that any sort of alternative definition to "prejudice or discrimination against Islam or Muslims" exists, even in the arguments of the critics. in fact, to be able to criticise the concept itself, the basic premise for it must be agreement with its' "proponents" as to what the word is supposed to refer to. i maintain that my above proposal gives appropriate weight to the critics, while not obscuring accepted facts. ITAQALLAH 19:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That would justify to simply define it as prejudice or discrimination against Muslims or Islam then, without any modifiers, no? MessedRocker (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. "controversial term" is misleading as it's the concept which is somewhat controversial. --Raphael1 21:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

yes, which is how i believe the opening sentence should be presented - as a simple statement expressing the meaning of Islamophobia, which is undisputed. ITAQALLAH 00:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no difference between the meaning and the concept. Its the same thing. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Do we want the opening sentence to treat Islamophobia like a word (as in "the word Islamophobia means...") or do we want to treat it like a concept (as in "Islamophobia is the prejudice...")? MessedRocker (talk) 13:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Any difference between the two? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

my personal preference is "Islamophobia is prejudice or discrimination...", but i don't mind "Islamophobia is defined as prejudice or discrimination..." just to make it clear that it's the word being discussed. ITAQALLAH 23:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Why dont we say "Islamophobia is the alleged discrimination against Muslims or Islam" - alleged because it is Runnymede which is making the allegation and many other critics are denying that this discrimination exists, or maybe "Islamophobia is a term defined by the Runnymede trust as "discrimination of Islam or Muslims". Both of these versions are more accurate than simply saying "Islamophobia is the discrimination" - which is not agreed upon by everyone because people have said that its a myth. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Kenan Malik, to whom is attributed the claim that Islamophobia itself is a myth (not correct, he says it exists; just that it's not as rampant as made out to be), defines the word himself as "an irrational hatred of Islam".[2] as mentioned earlier, the topic is established and well accepted in academia. the phrase "Islamophobia is the alleged discrimination against Muslims or Islam" is rather poor style - does anyone contest the definition of the term as established (or "alleged") by Runnymede? "Islamophobia is a term defined by the Runnymede trust as "discrimination of Islam or Muslims"" is better, but we can do without the (scare?) quotes, and dozens of academics (and governments, i believe) support the Runnymede definition or slight variations of it- so we don't need to isolate a particular party. we can mention that it was developed by Runnymede, but that may be discussed in the following sentences when relating the history of the usage. removing the redundancy of ".. is a term.." leaves us with "Islamophobia is defined as prejudice or discrimination against Islam or Muslims." - which is something i would be willing to accept.

Matt, you previously proposed ""Islamophobia is a term defined by its proponents as prejudice or discrimination against Islam or Muslims" - which is almost identical to what i am proposing, but my proposal lacks "... by its proponents ..." - the reason being, there's no evidence that opponents define it any differently. ITAQALLAH 23:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

1) Kenan is not the only one who has denied the concept's existence. 2) The opponents are denying that the concept exists. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

we know the concept is disputed (not all opponents deny it exists by the way, and that includes Malik). we're talking about definition here. ITAQALLAH 01:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no difference between the meaning of Islamophobia and the concept of Islamophobia. Its the same thing. If its not the same thing, tell me the difference between the concept of God and the meaning of God. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"meaning" can be quite ambiguous, it may refer to the definition and etymology of the word "God", or it may refer to the concept of God. when i have been discussing the meaning, i have been referring to definition. we're discussing the definition of Islamophobia, which the critics must accept to be able to criticise the concept, else, they cannot be criticising the same term the "proponents" are forwarding. ITAQALLAH 01:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

In my response to your diff here, do opponents of belief in the existence of God deny that God implies the being who created the Universe? No they dont. Then why do we see "whom they believe" in God?

God most commonly refers to the deity worshipped by followers of monotheistic and monolatrist religions, whom they believe to be the creator and ruler of the universe.

Therefore believers (in God) == proponents (of Islamophobia). In that diff you have also implied that the meaning of the word and the concept are two different things. They are not. RS have said that the word is a myth or is non-existent. They're refering to its meaning and its concept, its the same thing. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

the God analogy is flawed, for the reasons explained above: Islamophobia is a topic grounded in academic studies (social sciences) and accepted in scholarship (as confirmed by a reliable source nb. i have located another reliable source also claiming widespread acceptance). whatever occurs on God is of no consequence here. please show where opponents deny the definition of the word. ITAQALLAH 01:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the God analogy is not flawed. Is the word God not grounded in academic studies too? Is it not accepted in scholarship? How did you define scholarship anyway? You're going in circles as usual. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

who denies the existence of the word "God"? the discussion is going in circles because you are conflating the definition of a word with the concept appendaged to it. we are discussing the former here, not the latter. ITAQALLAH 02:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

as an irrelevant sidenote: "RS have said that the word is a myth or is non-existent" - the word is present in the Oxford English Dictionary, i would certainly like to see which reliable sources (as opposed to political commentators) you have which claim the "word ... is non-existent." you're using the descriptor "myth" again, but as we have seen, Kenan Malik does not deny its existence. ITAQALLAH 02:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The word God is present in more dictionaries. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

so who says the word "God" does not exist? ITAQALLAH 02:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 1

The word exists, there's no denying it. I propose that the topic sentence is limited to defining the word, and not discussing whether or not it exists. This is the first sentence, the provider of basic background information, and then later on in the article all such controversies can be discussed. I'm assuming in the first paragraph it would be discussed how the word came to be, and what people think of it. Then as the article progresses, it gets into more specific detail. MessedRocker (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

i agree with that. ITAQALLAH 01:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The current definition is textbook POV. I don't see the need to mention that it's controvertial in the first sentence. Define the term correctly, then proceed to explain how some people might disagree with the concept. I'm opposed to the current version. Lixy 10:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

re Mukadderat's comment below: as was discussed above, there is no evidence that the definition of Islamophobia itself is controversial, so it makes little sense to overstate the scope of the dispute. as for the danger of anachronism, the succeeding sentence will likely cover the history of the coinage itself (i.e. established by Runnymede in '97). in theory, there's not much wrong with applying the term to pre-'97 events as long as it's supported by academic opinion. for example, though Antisemitism was a term coined relatively recently, it has been applied by scholars to multiple incidences well before the word came about. ITAQALLAH 02:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The difference between "antisemitism" and "islamophobia" is that the first term has neurtal coinage, while the second one has disparaging coinage. There are neutral terms "anti-Islamism", "anti-Muslim". Yes enemies of Islam existed since Muhammad (pbuh), but the current definition tries to conflate several notions into one derogatory word. Yes in some cases discrimination of Muslim is because of irrational predjudice, but in other cases it is politically or religiously motivated discrimination, not some "phobia". The term artificially lowers down the evaluation of the notion and implies its attribution to frightened, uneducated or otherwise misjudged people. therefore the term is "contradiction in terms" and controversial even in its definition. Mukadderat 17:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

well, the point i think is the fact we have sources saying that since its coinage by Runnymede, it has been well accepted in academic circles. in essence, Islamophobia means what Runnymede defined it to be, and that is closed views of Islam and Muslims subsequently amounting to prejudice or discrimination. that is a key distinction; the article revolves around Runnymede's appointed definition- which isn't the same as a raw etymological analysis (i.e. that "Islamophobia" is "a phobia of Islam" per se). one might argue that anti-semitism wasn't a very clever coinage (etymologically speaking) either, for Arabs too are semites. when academics discuss Islamophobia, they explicitly mean prejudice/discrimination against Islam/Muslims as presented by the Runnymede trust (and do not intend `Islamophobia` as derived from raw etymological analysis) - that is partly why it is highly important to be unequivocal in the opening sentence as to what Islamophobia is supposed to refer to - and the latter is something which is not disputed by the sources, regardless of whether they agree or disagree with the concept itself. when we have high quality dictionaries like OED presenting a decisive definition, it doesn't make sense to obscure that in the first sentence. ITAQALLAH 18:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how the current version somehow "obscures" the definition. While I think that the remark "There really isn't a phenomena like "Islamophobia" - at least no more than there was a "Germanophobia" in hating Hitler or "Russiaphobia" in detesting Stalin." - Historian Victor Davis Hanson" is thoroughly stupid (or misquoted), thre is a quite heated controversy, and hence this must be mentioned in the opening phrase. There is no reason to start the article from a simplistic dicdef, which immediately draws suspicions. Mukadderat 19:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

the controversy surrounds the concept (and whether or not that exists), not what the word Islamophobia is supposed to refer to. there is no evidence that the definition of Islamophobia as in English dictionaries is contested. in what way does neutrally defining Islamophobia draw suspicions? would you accept "Islamophobia refers to...", or "Islamophobia is defined as..."? ITAQALLAH 19:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

just to follow up on the point that academics who discuss Islamophobia don't mean `phobia of Islam`- "Far from being an 'irrational' fear, Islamophobia operates as part of a rational system of Western social, economic, political and cultural power that necessitates the construction of abject difference to maintain positional superiority (see Zine, 2004b)." (p. 35) in (En)gendering the War on Terror: War Stories And Camouflaged Politics, Ashgate publishing 2006. ITAQALLAH 16:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Before we get carried away, we have to remember that this is just a single sentence. We have the entire article to describe every last detail of Islamophobia. Now one thing I noticed is that few other articles include details on controversy in the first sentence; Wikipedia defines Evolution as In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation. even though a group finds it as a controversial concept. That is just one example. In any case, this is certainly a neologism, so perhaps it would be possible to make the first sentence The term "Islamophobia" is an neologism coined by the Runnymede Trust to refer to prejudice or discrimination against Muslims or Islam.? That may work. MessedRocker (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I have issue with the comparision of Islamophobia to evolution, in that evolution is a science, not really disputed amongst evolutionary experts. Islamophobia is a term to describe a concept, and the concept (either usage or existance) is disputed by those who are experts on the topic.--Sefringle^Talk 02:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't like it either. But to make sure: exactly what kinds of people are disputing Islamophobia in any way? MessedRocker (talk) 02:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

as far as i know, Islamophobia is an accepted topic in sociological study. there are piles of books (from high quality publishers) which discuss Islamophobia and its trends, underlying factors, and so on. i don't think it would be appropriate for me to provide an exhaustive list of all the sociological studies available on the topic, but here are some extracts which indicate widespread acceptance of the term.

• "In recent years, the phenomenon of Islamophobia (see World in focus below) has become recognized as one of the clearest expressions of racial intolerance in a different and growing form", "Islamophobia has become a widely used term and a major form of racial intolerance." (Sociology: Making Sense of Society - p. 315, 2005)
• "The next step in the development towards an official acceptance of the concept and phenomenon of 'Islamophobia' occured in January 2001, when expressions of Islamophobia were officially accepted as signs of intolerance, in line with racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia, by the Stockholm International Forum on Combating Intolerance. Many governments had previously hesitated to link Islamophobia with other forms of intolerance. As a result of this forum's declaration one can expect the concept 'Islamophobia' will have a greater impact on the international arena in the near future." (New Muslims in the European Context: The Experience of Scandinavian Converts - p. 53, Brill 2004)
• "The Runnymede Trust has been successful in that the term Islamophobia is now widely recognized and used, though many right-wing commentators either reject its existence or argue that it is justified." (Encyclopedia of Race and Ethnic studies p. 218, Routledge 2003)

it is also important to note that some academic sources in their discussions about Islamophobia also discuss some of the critiques raised by Fred Halliday (a professor of international relations) who disputes some of the concepts involved in Runnymede's discussion (i would like the criticism section to focus a little more on this). Sefringle, i wouldn't say dispute over existence or usage calls into question the definition. it's like saying marxism doesn't exist today, that's not related to what marxism is supposed to refer to. similarly, using Islamophobia in the wrong situation doesn't bring the definition into disrepute. i am happy to accept "Islamophobia is a neologism which refers to..." as a compromise. ITAQALLAH 16:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

re: "Islamophobia has become a widely used term and a major form of racial intolerance." quoted above. It is a perfect example of misuse of the term: Islamophobia is not about race. "Muslims" are not nationality. Someone said "controversy is not about term, but about notion" although I disagree, still even if it is true, it is splitting hairs about a neologism: if the notion is not defined clearly, then how a term can be precise? Unlike 100+ years old dictionaries, new buzzwords are read differently by different people, and it is a genuine controversy, both in term and in concept, as well as in brains of people who use the word. The surrounding controversies are so convolute, that it is actually the main content of the article, and therefore this must be stated the intro sentence, per wikipedia policy about intro. Mukadderat 18:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

i disagree, and feel your analysis is a bit superficial. if you read a number or sociological studies and works on Islamophobia, you may note that academics tie in the theme of racism closely with Islamophobia - the Encyclopedia of race and ethnic studies calls it a type of "cultural racism" and explains the reasoning behind this. i have provided a small sample of these sources in this section (i will provide more thorough extracts if requested). i'm not quite sure how your point about the dictionaries fits in, Islamophobia is an entry that has been added only within the past few years. that the criticism section is really quite bloated (and i am sure you agree) is a) something to be addressed as mediation continues; and b) irrelevant to the current discussion as i feel that section contravenes WP:UNDUE in the first place. i think this discussion is a little tangental though, we all know and agree that Islamophobia refers to "prejudice or discrimination against Islam/Muslims", and i am willing to mention that it's a neologism in the opening sentence as a compromise, but for something that is verifiably widely accepted i am not comfortable with describing it as "controversial" in the opening sentence. ITAQALLAH 12:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Esteemed colleague, in political studies I just don't believe academics just because they are called academics: someone usually pays them or they have certain views and cultures. Blurring notions and terminology is a great disservice to social research. When someone calls "racism" to topics unrelated to race/ethnicity, this person seriously decreases their credibility in my eyes: we have witnessed a wide history of abuse of strong words, e.g., you may recall the term "feminazi". Mutual hatred based on religion or philosophy has history starting from times when religions and philosophies were recognized. Just take a look at Christianity. Christians cut throats of each other for minor (and the more for larger) interpretations of their dogmas. Islamophobia (whatever definition) is hatred of people for their beliefs, not for their ethnicity. Sticking a label "racism" is disservice to scientific discourse and good for politicians: it is good for slander, but bad for understanding of the issue. Second issue: "verifiably widely accepted" - I agree, but this does not contradict the existence of conrtoversy: "widely" is not synonym to "universally". The number of people who consider both the term itself and its usage as inaccurate is far from being marginal to be ignored. Mukadderat 17:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

the discussion needs to stay within the boundaries of representing what the sources say, regardless of our personal thoughts as to the validity of their assertions. everybody here has an opinion, we wouldn't get anywhere if we tried to sift through them to find the right one. our criterion for this discussion is WP:V and WP:RS.

i want to clarify that i have no qualm with mentioning opposition in the lead; i just think that appending "controversial" in the opening sentence, which discusses how Islamophobia is defined, is not warranted upon surveillance of the sources. if we can find any sources postulating that Islamophobia isn't defined as prejudice/discrimination against Muslims, then we may be able to move this discussion forward. as it currently stands, i am willing to accept "Islamophobia is a neologism defined as prejudice or discrimination against Muslims or Islam." as the opening sentence. mention of the coinage by Runnymede, the perceptions associated with it, and the opposition forwarded are all to be mentioned in the lead, and these issues may all be addressed once we are set on the first sentence. ITAQALLAH 14:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

any further thoughts about this proposal? ITAQALLAH 10:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Weight of the criticism section

List everything that is wrong with the level of criticism in this article, as well as the criticism section itself. MessedRocker (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Kenan Malik, Rushdie et al, Josie Appleton, Afshin Ellian, Dennis Prager, Piers Benn all give virtually the same argument of claiming that criticism and discrimination are confused and thus it serves to delegitimise criticism. in a number of cases, such as Prager/Rusdhie/Appleton, there is extensive quoting, while the argument is still the same. this particular facet can surely be condensed into a good paragraph.
• there is substantial quotefarming, this point and the above means that the section devotes substantial undue weight in favour of critical opinions.
• there is also the inclusion of irrelevant material from Atkinson and Toynbee, the latter's inclusion justified by the clause "Critics have cited the case of British journalist Polly Toynbee," - for which no citation has been provided.
• a seperate section exists for "Islamophobia-phobia"- which contains two paragraphs mainly consisting of a substantial quote respectively, and a third paragraph seemingly unrelated to the sub-section. this can be condensed into a few sentences of prose and incorporated into the parent section. ITAQALLAH 17:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that there are too many quotes in that section. Don't we have Wikiquote for that? I remember, when I add a small part of this quote to Islamophobia and was asked to move that to Wikiquote. Later someone later removed even the reference to Franklin Graham, Pat Robertson and Benny Hinn in the "Views labeled Islamophobic" section. --Raphael1 10:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I dont anything wrong with this section. If there's quotefarming in the Criticism section, its also there in the Perceptions section, which is almost a copy paste of the Runnymede PDF file. To me this section is fine. Everyone is giving different and unique comments in the criticism section. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Quotefarming is never good -- it seems here that the criticism and perception sections just need to be copyedited. MessedRocker (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with that as long as the essense and uniqueness of the quotes is left in. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

i agree, though repetition of the same arguments needs to be resolved. ITAQALLAH 01:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I second that. As it is, the section is not good encyclopedic material. I propose keeping the original quotes from the most prominent people and then just saying that X and Y echoed the same concerns. I'm afraid the section currently goes against WP:UNDUE. Lixy 10:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Using Rowan Atkinson as a critic of Islamophobia

List everything wrong with this. MessedRocker (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

1. It should go to Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 as it has only marginally to do with Islamophobia.
2. I couldn't find the quotation in the reference.

--Raphael1 21:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

the citation used in the article is: [3]. the article is discussing the religious hatred bill (linked above), and focuses on what Rowan Atkinson has to say about it. he criticises the bill because he feels it endorses self-censorship and serves as a hinderance for comedians. the problem with using Atkinson is that not once does he mention Islamophobia, nor criticise the concept. a Ctrl-F reveals that the word "Islamophobia" appears only once in the article, mentioned in passing, by Shami Chakrabarti, who suggests that the passing of the bill might accentuate Islamophobia instead of clamping down on it. as Raphael correctly noted, the quotes attributed to Atkinson do not appear in the cited article, but they do appear in other sources such as this, where, again, there is no evidence that he is speaking within the context of Islamophobia as opposed to the bill in general. to link his comments to criticism of Islamophobia would constitute original research. ITAQALLAH 00:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

“ While he said he sympathised with those who promoted the legislation, in particular British Muslims, he added: "I appreciate that this measure is an attempt to provide comfort and protection to them but unfortunately it is a wholly inappropriate response far more likely to promote tension between communities than tolerance." ”

...is part of the original newspaper article in the independent.[4] But even if it's quoted correctly, it's not related to Islamophobia and should go to Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. --Raphael1 01:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Use of the word "alleged"

It is my opinion that "alleged" is a fine word, but it cannot be overused, nor is it the magical NPOVifier. We need to find a way to cut down on the usage. MessedRocker (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

what is your suggestion?--Sefringle^Talk 20:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

1. We can replace "alleged" with "stated" or "declared", whenever it is used as a past-tense verb.
2. We can remove "alleged" in the context of "Efforts against alleged Islamophobia", because it doesn't make any sense. Nobody makes an effort against something, which is merely alleged. One can resist against an allegation, but this is not, what is meant here. I.e. the British government would not set up a number of initiatives aimed at combating alleged Islamophobia. If it were merely an "alleged" problem, they would probably calm the public instead. --Raphael1 20:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Um no. That is completely ignoring the controversy surrounding the concept. This view needs to be at least represented within the article.--Sefringle^Talk 21:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No question there is a controversy surrounding the concept, which certainly needs to be represented within the article (as it is now in section "Criticism"). But why do we have to write about "alleged Islamophobia", when we talk about an effort against Islamophobia (not its allegation)? --Raphael1 21:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a controversy, but using "alleged" every other word isn't the way to go. MessedRocker (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

in some instances, `alleged` can either be removed (i.e. "Efforts against Islamophobia", which is a topic which is covered well in academic sources), or the passage can be rephrased to provide attribution ("According to the BBC, incident X was characterized by Islamophobia/Islamophobic sentiment"). i agree, it's not something that should be overused, as it gives the impression of undue scepticism over the issue. ITAQALLAH 00:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Alleged definently belongs in the views section, as the controversy reguarding the term is about the labeling of certian views as showing a prejudice against muslims. It also belongs in some other cases, as in events where it is disputed as to whether it was just a crime and not a hate crime, and whether there is a legit reason for the action, i.e suspectiong someone of terrorism b/c suspecious behaviour or something is not necessarily prejudice, so that is alleged.--Sefringle^Talk 20:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

And what about the "Efforts against alleged Islamophobia"? Do you consider "alleged" appropriate in that section? Why? --Raphael1 10:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's an interesting text about the usage of "alleged" Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#So-called.2C_soi-disant.2C_supposed.2C_alleged.2C_purported. --Raphael1 12:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think "Efforts against alleged Islamophobia" should not have the "alleged" part because otherwise it looks silly, plus just "Efforts against Islamophobia" does not dictate whether or not such a concept really exists. MessedRocker (talk) 13:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

New proposal

I propose merging thesection entitled "criticism" into the section entitled "Perceptions". These are similar topics, and criticism sections do seem a little problematic.--Sefringle^Talk 20:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

the perceptions section is about academic sociological study concerning what stereotypes/prejudices are thought to constitute or contribute to Islamophobia, which i think is a seperate topic from opinions on the validity (or otherwise) of concept itself. i think the criticism section could possibly be turned into a general section on views detailing what people think about Islamophobia. ITAQALLAH 21:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

So in other words, "perceptions" is what Islamophobia is, and "criticism" is what people think about Islamophobia. MessedRocker (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the "criticism" section title, so nobody here can claim, that the critics won't get heard in this article. --Raphael1 09:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Views would be better, so as to give them due value within the article, or outright merging.--Sefringle^Talk 03:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't thinks so. IMHO it will unnecessarily heat up the debate. --Raphael1 00:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

explain.--Sefringle^Talk 00:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

When we have a "views" section, editors with different views on Islamophobia are forced to work together (IRL unfortunately rather "edit-war") on that section to "balance" the pro and con views. OTOH a "criticism" section is supposed to contain criticism only, which needs good references, but no "neutral" position. The thing is: If we don't have a criticism section, the "critique" will spread on the whole article, and we end up with Islamophobia in quotes resp. alleged Islamophobia everywhere. --Raphael1 01:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

i don't think merging two distinct sections (i.e. 'perceptions', which deals with what stereotypes/prejudices academics believe constitute Islamophobia; and 'criticism', which discusses critical opinions related to Islamophobia) is necessary. the rename of "criticism" to "views" needs more discussion on the talk page, i'm not sure how this proposal is actually relevant to the topics listed for mediation. ITAQALLAH 01:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed resolutions (part 1)

Here is what I propose for the things which appear to be resolved. If you agree to them, you can sign your username, and if you disagree with a proposal, write below why.

1. The opening sentence of the Islamophobia article should be Islamophobia is prejudice or discrimination against Muslims or Islam. You may propose variants below. The idea is to restrict the opening sentence to defining the word and not explaining the concept or how controversial it is.

• Agree --Raphael1 15:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Agree ITAQALLAH 16:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree. Enough is written in the talk above. In addition, such a simplistic definition opens the doors to anacronisms. The intro sentence must cleary say that (a) it is 20th century neologism and (b) it is controversial (yes, both as term and as its usage). Mukadderat 22:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - responded above. ITAQALLAH 02:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree this isn't a compromise. This is just removing the word "controversial" from the lead, while the concept is clearly controversial.--Sefringle^Talk 03:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • We know the concept is controversial. The dictionary definition isn't. MessedRocker (talk) 04:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes the dictionary definition is controversial as well. The suffix "phobia" implies "irrational", while the hatred towards muslim is often a very rational and calculated racism. Mukadderat 16:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
      • we'd need sources establishing that how "Islamophobia" is defined is controversial. MarkB2 makes an important point below, well known dictionaries use the term unreservedly, as do many academics. even those who criticise the concept, can only criticise it if they accept (in princple) the definition forwarded by Runnymede. the etymological accuracy of the coinage Runnymede forwarded is a slightly different point. if you'd like to discuss further, it's better we do it in an above section, just to keep things tidy here.ITAQALLAH 22:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There are sources establishing that the term is controversial. As further evidence, there are over three different definitions of the concept, its usage, etc. as well as issues related to whether or not certian things are or are not islamophobic, whether or not it is racism, whether the concept exists, etc. It is controversial, and that belongs in the lead sentence.--Sefringle^Talk 03:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

well, this is what we have been debating for over a month now (see above), and i believe your concerns have been addressed there. if you'd like to discuss further, please contribute here. ITAQALLAH 03:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Agree - Addhoc 10:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree -The OED defines Islamophobia. Despite the fact that Victor Davis Hansen and the good people at Regnery Press don't want the term to exist, it does, it has a precise definition, and it is used regularly. Applying it is controversial, but its definition has been established by the most authoritative source on the English language, not to mention many other dictionaries. When the OED and other dictionaries define the term precisely there isn't controversy about the meaning of the term. I might debate another controversial term, like "supply side economics," but that doesn't mean the definition of the term is controversial (it is well understood), just its application and efficacy. MarkB2 ^Chat 20:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree The most essential issues, such as the fact that it is a controversial neologism must be included. -- Karl Meier 08:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Agree Padishah5000 14:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Agree. But I wouldn't mind saying it is a fairly modern concept (not necessarily "20th century " since we are in the 21st), per Mukadderat.Bless sins 05:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Agree. Not to mention that it would be easier to understand the criticism that way as well.Bless sins 05:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

2. The criticism section should cut down on the quotes and should be reduced to what remarks have been made, and then a general listing of people who agree.

• Agree --Raphael1 15:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Agree ITAQALLAH 16:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree Quotes may be put into footnote. Without actual quotes in such a sensitive topic there is no reason to believe that wikipedians misinterpret what was actually said. I have already had to struggle with this in Muslim-related articles, when the word of a Muslim person were "transquoted" via a bigotry publication, with meaning carefuly twisted. Mukadderat 22:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree removial of important content.--Sefringle^Talk 03:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Agree - Addhoc 10:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree Important content should not be removed. -- Karl Meier 08:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The content would not be removed, just condensed and copyedited, with the fluff removed and the concise points noted. MessedRocker (talk) 10:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
    • MessedRocker, we'd have to see what the new version of the criticism is. I just dont want any important criticism information removed. Also, I wanted to thank you for your patience in this whole dispute and trying to resolve the issue. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
      • i suppose the resolution is intended for us to at least agree in principle that the criticism section needs to be trimmed by removing what is superfluous. as long as we can agree on that, then we can work towards actually proposing and discussing specifically what changes should be made. i would also second Matt57 in thanking Messedrocker for his patience and efforts. ITAQALLAH 15:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Agree Padishah5000 14:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

2a. The criticism section should be reduced to what remarks have been made, with a general listing of people who agree, and the quotes can be put in the footnotes if necessary.

• Disagree slight wording problems: while this is an improvement, instead, the arguements (not remarks) people have made, and who made them/agreed with them should be listed, with the quotes in the footnotes.--Sefringle^Talk 03:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Agree (2nd choice) - Addhoc 10:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Agree Padishah5000 20:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Agree, with the remark that in the "if necessary" one must "set necessary=TRUE" per my comment above. Mukadderat 18:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Agree (2^nd choice), as long as this solution still allows for removing redundant repetitions of arguments. i don't mind having the quotes relocated to the footnotes. ITAQALLAH 14:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

3. The Rowan Atkinson blurb should be moved to the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 article.

• Agree --Raphael1 15:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Agree ITAQALLAH 16:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Agree Mukadderat 22:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Agree - Addhoc 10:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Agree Padishah5000 14:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Since there's no disagreement, I changed that.--Raphael1 19:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This is just for now. As more subdiscussions finish, things can be changed around. MessedRocker (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)