Talk:Islamophobia/Archive 18

Mormons are not Christians
Mormons are not Christians. No other Christian church recognises Mormons as such. Mormons are neither part of any ecumenical organisation nor do they subscribe to any of the historic confessions of faith, in summary there are no grounds to list Mormons under Christians in this article or others. 185.58.166.44 (talk) 13:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Per Mormons Mormons (/ˈmɔːrmənz/) are a religious and cultural group related to Mormonism, the principal branch of the Latter Day Saint movement of Restorationist Christianity... Mormons self-identify as Christian,[3] although some non-Mormons consider Mormons non-Christian' William M. Connolley (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * When members of a religious sect try to redefine the religion of a different sect within their religion, it can be highly insulting to members of the (mis)defined sect, and it inhibits clear communication. This can be easily reduced to the absurd if you imagine a hypothetical religion with 100 equally sized sects that all consider themselves to be the one "true" form of their religion (as religious sects often do).  If we were to define each sect's religion based on how the majority majority of this religion defined it, then none of the sects could actually be defined as members of this religion (obviously, this would be insane).  I personally find Mormonism absurd (even more absurd than most other forms of Christianity), and you have the right to think whatever you want to about Mormons, but because they consider themselves to be Christians, objectively, they are.12.27.98.114 (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * See also No True Scotsman fallacy. Christians are people who espouse a following of the teachings of Jesus Christ.  Full stop.  It is intellectually dishonest to exclude groups that fit that definition but don't also believe some other thing which is irrelevant to the meaning of the word Christian in its simplest, broadest sense.  -- Jayron 32 03:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Protestants and Catholics used to naked the same accusations. It still happens within Christianity, small sects claiming they are the only Cristian's. And in Islam. We ignore them and don't say who is really what. Doug Weller  talk 08:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Not a phobia
Shouldn't it be noted that the term phobia has nothing to do with what is described in the articel?Dislike is not a phobia which is:"An extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something" The dislike of a religion based on the teachings and the doings of practioners of said religion is not irrational.It is in fact very rational and based on facts. 47.71.72.89 (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed to death (see the archives) and already discussed in the article.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 02:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is also no different than Xenophobia or Homophobia.--67.68.163.254 (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * You are using an etymological fallacy. Turkeys don't actually come from Turkey, but they are called turkeys in reliable sources.  TFD (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

a person using the word turkey to describe a bird or its meat is obviously not implying it comes from Turkey though, and this is commonly understood! but a person using the word 'islamophobia' is certainly trying to mean that it is a 'phobia' i.e an irrational fear when the fear of Islam, considering its teaches, is entirely rational — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.112.144.10 (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Wrong. The term turkey implied that the bird came from Turkey.  You and I both know it did not, but you are not arguing to change the name of the article about turkeys.  Also, you do not believe that islamophobia means "a 'phobia' i.e an irrational fear," so you are on the same plain as not being confused that a turkey comes from Turkey.  TFD (talk) 07:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Wrong for a different reason than TFD. The hatred of Islam is not rational, 82.112 is just a bigot.  -- Jayron 32 03:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Bigot may be a strong word. A position may be "rationally" arrived at (i.e., reached through some sort of reasoning) and yet not be morally/ethically justified.
 * Regardless, anon is making a highly intuitive argument that is none-the-less irrelevant. If prejudice against Muslims/Islam was called "moderately-fuzzy-penguin-tossing" by a majority of sources, then that's what the article should be named. As it happens, islamaphobia fits the bill. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Dislike of Islam is not irrational. Explain away ISIS and the Taliban, I dare you.CatGrass (talk) 10:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Uhh...If I recall correctly, in the US you are something like 30 times more likely to die of a fire you set in your own kitchen than you are to die of a terrorist attack. Also Islam is not synonymous with ISIS/Taliban. Timothy Joseph Wood  12:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * How likely is the fire to be set up to kill you? Compare arson with terror attacks, then come back, OK? But, I did commit guilt by association fallacy, my apologies. CatGrass (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

We already have an article on Criticism of Islam, covering various controversial aspects of the religion and providing various perspectives. Its not the most comprehensive article, but avoids associating the entire history of Islam with just the most recent expressions of Islamism. Frankly, there is a difference between rational criticism and/or distrust of Islam and the outright demonization of its adherents. Dimadick (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

---How surprising. People arguing rationally against this idiotic term are immediately labelled 'bigots' by ... wait for it ... snowflake bigots. ---Pathetic, dreadful article. Inter alia, it conflates feelings towards Islam with those against Muslims. Typical of snowflake bigotry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * May I remind you that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED so if islamophobes go boo boo if they are called islamophobes they should perhaps go to their safe space instead. // Liftarn (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Right SAJJAD HUSSAIN (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

As very correctly pointed below, a "phobia" (coming from the Greek word "φοβία") is a mental disorder which manifest itself with the irrational, unwarranted fear towards things that the mainstream population does not regard as harmful. Also equating Islamophobia with Muslimphobia is wrong. The first has to do with a religion, e.g. a belief system and the other has to do with people of specific ethic origin. Islamophobia is a mis-coined term because freedom of speech and circulation of ideas is the basis of our civilization. Ideas are subject to criticism; the opposite would be fascism. Also, Muslimphobia is a mis-coined word, since not all Muslims are Arabs, while not all Arabs are Muslims. Therefore applying a racial/ethnic attribute to the term in order to use it for political reasons, is wrong.(Submitted by XwpisONOMA(at)gMail(dot)com on May 9th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:4e01:2dd3:24e7:bf2e:f528:f713 (talk • contribs)


 * I'll tell you what. Get Oxford Press to remove it from their dictionary. They are online here and define it as "Dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force." When you manage to do that come back an we can check. Doug Weller  talk 18:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Islamophobia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306001003/http://www.mcb.org.uk/article_detail.php?article=announcement-862 to http://www.mcb.org.uk/article_detail.php?article=announcement-862
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119025153/http://www.levandehistoria.se/files/islamofobi.pdf to http://www.levandehistoria.se/files/islamofobi.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119025153/http://www.levandehistoria.se/files/islamofobi.pdf to http://www.levandehistoria.se/files/islamofobi.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119025153/http://www.levandehistoria.se/files/islamofobi.pdf to http://www.levandehistoria.se/files/islamofobi.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071112213546/http://www.raxen.eumc.eu.int/1/webmill.php?id=32813&ditem=3101&lin=detail to http://www.raxen.eumc.eu.int/1/webmill.php?id=32813&ditem=3101&lin=detail
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071223010504/http://fra.europa.eu/fra/index.php?fuseaction=content.dsp_cat_content&catid=1 to http://fra.europa.eu/fra/index.php?fuseaction=content.dsp_cat_content&catid=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 June 2017
Please change:

Islamophobia or Muslimophobia refers to fear, prejudice, hatred or dislike directed against Islam or Muslims, or towards Islamic politics or culture.[1][2][3]

to

Islamophobia is defined as "Intense dislike or fear of Islam, esp. as a political force; hostility or prejudice towards Muslims"

Writing about what Islamophobia "refers to" before defining it left me with the impression that Wikipedia was expanding the definition of Islamophobia to include the "dislike" of "Islam." If Wikipedia is expanding the definition of Islamophobia to include "dislike" then expressing a "dislike" for a passage in the Quran would make one an islamophobe. In fact this new definition could include Muslims as well if they expressed any "dislike" of "islamic politics or culture." In fact many if not most muslims could be considered islamophobes if they express any "dislike" for a competing aspect of islamic "politics or culture." It should be made clear that mere "dislike" of any aspect of Islamic ideology, politics of culture does not constitute islamophobia.

Another idea might be to move the definition section to the top of the article and doing away with or rewriting that line so as to be more clear about what Islamophobia refers to, without leaving the impression that this is a new definition.Sieben von neun (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

✅ – Note, I've left out "Muslimphobia" out of the lede because the dictionary citations do not use the term. Thereby we leave out the WP:SYN problem when the definition of one term seeks to include another term, which is not independently defined (or cited) in the references. Wikilinks are left out of the definition in accordance with MOS:QUOTE. – S. Rich (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

-- I started this thread but then realized my position was getting a bit muddled so I deleted it and stated over. I'm putting the comments back in because I have been informed that this may have been bad form. No offense intended to Icewhiz. Please note that my objections have been addressed and I no longer necessarily agree with all of the assertions made below. Sieben von neun (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Please also consider the use of irrational as a modifier for fear as this is consistent with many definitions of Islamophobia and the use of phobia as a suffix. This would also make Wikipedia more consistent with its own definition of Islamophobia as found on the wiki page: Islamophobia in the media  Wikipedia also defines phobia as an "irrational fear" when used as a suffix  Sieben von neun (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Rationalwiki "Islamophobia is the irrational fear or hatred of Islam or Muslims."

The Merriam Webster dictionary also defines Islamophobia as an "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against Islam or people who practice Islam."

The definition of phobia from Entomology online also includes the element of irrational in the use of phobia "irrational fear, horror, aversion," 1786, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sieben von neun (talk • contribs)


 * This statement shouldn't be done in Wikipedia's voice. As there are many who make rational arguments as to how Islam leads to Jihad, imposition of Sharia law, "modesty" policing, honor killings, etc.. If this were to go in, it would have to be limited to some claim that Islamphobia is irrational while others advance (1,2,3,4) arguments to justify Islamphobia. in Ofxford it is defined as Dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force. - without claiming this is definitely irrational.Icewhiz (talk) 05:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia already defines Islamophobia as an "irrational or unreasoned fear of Islam and Muslims." I only want the definition to remain consistent. I'm not sure that I'm opposed to your logic though.  Do you agree that a rational argument that Islam could lead to Jihad does not make one Islamophobic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sieben von neun (talk • contribs)


 * Seeing as people who purport to advance rational arguments are willing to tag themselves as "proud Islamophobes" (e.g. ) - then no - this is not the 100% accepted usage. Otherwise people claiming to make rational arguments wouldn't be willing to self-tag themselves with a tag specifying irrationality. Regarding Islamophobia in the media - it should (and I will) be fixed to reflect the consensus in the main article. In general using Wikipedia as a source for a claim is a circular argument, and a particularly weak one when referencing a sub-article (in this case dealing with media coverage) of the main article.Icewhiz (talk) 06:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * If irrationality is not an element of Islamophobia then it would be possible to be a rational Islamophobe. I'm not sure there are any other rational phobias.  Again my apologies for another "circular argument" but Wikipedia indicates that "A phobia is an irrational fear."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sieben von neun (talk • contribs) 06:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * (indent your comments please). The disambig page needs to be fixed, though Phobia is not defined that way in the main article or dictionaries. e.g. - An extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something. . While many phobias are irrational, they do not have to be - a rational by extreme fear/aversion of something might still be a phobia (and I believe there may be a few examples here). In any event - as some people are "proud islamophobes" and some people have used "rational islamophobia" (e.g.  ), we can't state this in Wikipedia's voice - we can only state this is irrational with qualifications (according to whom) and stating opposing views.Icewhiz (talk) 07:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The main article defining Phobia concerns clinical psychology. "For other uses, see Phobia (disambiguation)." My argument is etymological the "disambig (sic) page" uses the term correctly it does not need to be fixed.  Wikipedia  does have a list of phobias. The vast majority require an extreme or irrational fear, but there is a section that includes "Racist and xenophobic sentiments" which includes islamophobia.  Anti-religious sentiments are expressed in terms of Christianophobia and Islamophobia.  Substituting hate (a xenophobic element) for dislike in Wikipedia's definition of Islamophobia would be consistent with the accepted use of phobia as a suffix.    Sieben von neun (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Sieben von neun (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Sieben von neun (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Please note we never use Wikipedia (or other wikis) as a reference. Also, if there is different language for the lede sentence, please state it precisely. – S. Rich (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Prominence of "Anti-muslim Bigotry"
Although the term "Islamophobia" is more widely used than the term "Anti-muslim Bigotry," the latter term is more NPOV as evidenced by the fact that there is a section on this site devoted to criticism of the term. After reading the policy on article titling, I think that the title Islamophobia is acceptable because it is most widely used, but the term "Anti-muslim Bigotry" should be featured more prominently.

From Wikipedia NPOV policy: ''Although multiple terms may be in common usage, a single name should be chosen as the article title, in line with the article titling policy (and relevant guidelines such as on geographical names). Article titles that combine alternative names are discouraged. For example, "Derry/Londonderry", "Aluminium/Aluminum" or "Flat Earth (Round Earth)" should not be used. Instead, alternative names should be given due prominence within the article itself, and redirects created as appropriate.''

Full disclosure on my personal opinion: I personally object to the term Islamophobia because it conflates criticism of the doctrines of Islam with bigotry against Muslims on the basis of their religion. I realize that critics of Islam are often motivated by anti-muslim bigotry, but I think it is unfair to use the same label for a bigot and an ex-muslim explaining why they left their religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.27.98.114 (talk) 00:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Regarding your use of the term bigotry: are you sure you don't mean prejudice?


 * Bigotry is intolerance of the different opinions of others. Someone who says 'I think all Muslims are psychopathic monsters, but I could be wrong' is prejudiced, but not a bigot.  Someone who says 'All races are certainly equivalent in all respects that matter' is unprejudiced, but a bigot.


 * Paul Magnussen (talk) 06:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Criticism by apostates
From Ayaan Hirsi Ali's wikipedia foreword:

In 2005, Ayaan Hirsi Ali was named by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world. She has also received several awards, including a free speech award from the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, the Swedish Liberal Party's Democracy Prize, and the Moral Courage Award for commitment to conflict resolution, ethics, and world citizenship.

Consequently I believe her words merit inclusion in this article

Under the Islamophobia#criticism#commentary section please append

Ayaan Hirsi Ali a noted critic of "Islamism" and ex-muslim says that:

My argument is that it is foolish to insist, as our leaders habitually do, that the violent acts of radical Islamists can be divorced from the religious ideals that inspire them. Instead we must acknowledge that they are driven by a political ideology, an ideology embedded in Islam itself, in the holy book of the Qur’an as well as the life and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad contained in the hadith.

Let me make my point in the simplest possible terms: Islam is not a religion of peace. For expressing the idea that Islamic violence is rooted not in social, economic, or political conditions — or even in theological error — but rather in the foundational texts of Islam itself, I have been denounced as a bigot and an “Islamophobe.” I have been silenced, shunned, and shamed. In effect, I have been deemed to be a heretic, not just by Muslims — for whom I am already an apostate — but by some Western liberals as well, whose multicultural sensibilities are offended by such “insensitive” pronouncements.

My uncompromising statements on this topic have incited such vehement denunciations that one would think I had committed an act of violence myself. For today, it seems, speaking the truth about Islam is a crime. “Hate speech” is the modern term for heresy. And in the present atmosphere, anything that makes Muslims feel uncomfortable is branded as “hate.”

In these pages(of the book Heretic (2015)), it is my intention to make many people — not only Muslims but also Western apologists for Islam — uncomfortable. I am not going to do this by drawing cartoons. Rather, I intend to challenge centuries of religious orthodoxy with ideas and arguments that I am certain will be denounced as heretical. My argument is for nothing less than a Muslim Reformation.

and additionally that islamophobia is in fact "a myth", because a phobia is an irrational fear, and fear of islam is not irrational.

Specifically, Ayaan argues that unlike for example christianity which has undergone reform so it no longer preaches attitude that caused the crusades or the spanish inquisition; islamic texts conversely are still used verbatim to:
 * oppress and stone women
 * condone child marriages
 * justify ISIS throwing gays off buildings
 * condone female genital mutilation

Ethanpet113 (talk) 02:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. I'm afraid this might cause undue weight. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Islamophobia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080820031422/http://www.wesleyan.edu/newsletter/campus/2007/1107islambook.html to http://www.wesleyan.edu/newsletter/campus/2007/1107islambook.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120502054200/http://www.adl.org/main_Extremism/sioa.htm to http://www.adl.org/main_Extremism/sioa.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

"...especially when seen as a geopolitical force or the source of terrorism"
I read a number of works in the literature on Islamophobia and I do not think I ever came across a definition for Islamophobia that says anything along lines of "especially when seen as a geopolitical force or the source of terrorism". User is pushing hard to impose his alt-right narrative down our throats and is under the illusion that we do not see what he's trying to do here. Imagine the article on anti-black racism saying "hatred of black people, especially when seen as a source of crimes", or anti-antisemitism saying "hatred of Jews especially when seen as trying to control the world". Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Watch yourself, you are perilously close to a Personal Attack there. I'd advise you to ask around a bit to determine whether I am alt-righter or not, because what you're going to find is that I'm almost exactly the opposite.  So please, bury your preconceptions deep, and I'll forget that you were so entirely off target in pigeon-holing me.  Do it again, and you'll be reported to admins for sanctioning.Now, you say you've read "a number of works in the literature of Islamophobia", which is great.  The question is, have the read the works cited or not? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW, please check WikiBlame - I did not add the material in question that you have been edit warring in trying to remove. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * One thing further: it's a bit odd that you're so bent out of shape about this half-sentence in the lede. The lede is a summary of the article, and the question of the relationship of Islamophobia to Islam as a geo-political force and a perceived source of terrorism is dealt with in the body of the article is several places, which is why it's appropriate to be in the lede. If you're under the impression that fear or hatred of Islam has absolutely no relationship to the radical Islamisist movement, and the very spectacular Islamisist terrorist events which had their apotheosis (if not their beginning) with the 9-11 attacks, you're living in a fantasy world.  These things most definitely fuel the fire of Islamophobia, and not to deal with them in this article would be intellectually dishonest and a disservice to our readers. We don't whitewash unpleasant realities here or practice political correctness, we report what reliable sources say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The connection between terrorism and Islamophobia is well documented - including in the article body. Islamophobia only became a front-line issue following 9/11, 7/7, IS, and various other high profile terror events.Icewhiz (talk) 09:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The causes for Islamophobia needs to be decoupled from the definition of the term. When you bundle both together, you are pushing a certain POV, something that user "Beyond My Ken" is clearly after. Besides, the lead section in the 3rd paragraph already states that there is "an increase in Islamophobia resulting from the September 11 attacks,some from multiple terror attacks in Europe and the United States". This is a more neutral way of stating the connection or relationship between the 2 than the alt-right's "not shocking...they brought it to themselves" narrative. Also, the broadening from "Muslim politics" to "geopolitical force" is insidious. This seems like a belief in Eurabia/Counter-jihad conspiracy theories. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether the narrative is correct or not is besides the point. For instance, look at all of the discourse there was around Park51 (also known as Ground Zero mosque). Those objecting to the mosque, near ground zero, clearly tied their objects to terror. e.g. see this CNN coverage, or this piece in the awl that documents use of "Ground Zero terror mosque" and "Victory Mosque" as well as quite a few other statements tying the aversion of the speakers to the Islamic cultural center to terror. They may be wrong in making such a connection or objecting at all - however it is quite clear they are making the connection in this case and in others. Regarding "geopolitical force" - take a look at some of the more, umm, encompassing discourse surronding the Muslim Brotherhood (and allegations they a scheming for "world domination") - and you'll see some backing for that language as well.Icewhiz (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Think I agree with Al-Andalusi here. His comparison to other minorities is apt. If this kind of language were used with other minorities it would almost certainly be viewed as inappropriate. Anyways, let's keep it WP:CIVIL. As always, there's a simple mechanism for resolving these disputes. It's called an WP:RfC. NickCT (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree it should be taken out because it injects an apology for islamophobia. Who wouldn't oppose a group trying to take over the world and the source of terrorism?  I cannot access any of the sources.  It is similar to anti-Semitism in that they were also accused of trying to take over the world, causing all wars and other evils.  Even if that is what they say, we would need a reason to provide weigbt to their opinions over those of other sources used in the article.  TFD (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The subject is not the actuality of the beliefs, or the rationality of the beliefs, or the correctness of the bleifs, but the existence of the beliefs. They do exist, and they are as described. One cannot discuss any form of discrimination without reference to why that discrimination exists.  That's not an "apology", that's straight-forward reportage and sociology.  It's only by knowing the reasons why discrimination exists that we can have any hope of ending it, and to shy away from truthful and accurate description of the whys is simply sticking one's head in the sand and hoping the problem will go away.  It won't, not until we understand what we're dealing with and can counter it effectively. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The why is the fear some people have of others who are different from them, rather than any reality. TFD (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And that is what the article is about, the fear, and the causes behind it. The lede simply says that. We don't leave out the causes because they're unreal, we describe and explain them.  Political correctness is no part of our mandate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You missed my point. Islamophobia as understood by experts is not caused by fear of terrorism or the geopolitical ambitions of Islamic extremists, but by the irrationality of people who dislike people who are different from them.  If it is caused by reality, then it is not an irrational fear, but a reasoned one, hence Islamophobia would be a meaningless concept.  That of course is the position of the "anti-Islamists."  While I believe we should mention their concerns, the article should  not adopt their position.  TFD (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * TFD puts it very well. If people did not have an irrational fear of the other, then they wouldn't focus on groups the way all racists do. Doug Weller  talk 17:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree that we should not adopt their position, however where I think we disagree is that the wording as it stands, does not, in my opinion, do that. What alternate wording would be better to put across the point that these factors go into inciting the fear, without having it be expressed in Wikipedia's voice that the fears are justified? Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2018
change"Islamophobia is the fear, hatred of, or prejudice against, the Islamic religion or Muslims generally,[1][2][3] especially when seen as a geopolitical force or the source of terrorism.[4][5][6]" to "Islamophobia is the fear hatred of the Islamic Politics, as sharia law is clear for the position of woman being inferior to that of a man and it preaches death of jews, homosexuals.It also advocates forced conversions and destruction of the non- believers. Al-qaeda, ISIS, HARAM are the heros of Islamic political world" to the editors_ stop the political correctness because the grooming of girls in england will not stop there if the critics who speak against the practices are shunned. think about the future generations SatnamDandiwal (talk) 11:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Unsourced and incorrect, O3000 (talk) 11:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Guardian article titled "Islamophobia is real. Stop the obsession with semantics"
While reverting the latest edit and doing a search, I found this article by Miqdaad Versi published last month.. The subtitle "The idea that those who engage in Islamophobia or deny its existence should be driving our word choice is ludicrous" describes its content." I don't have time to use it in the article, but it's obviosly relevant.

I also found which is about Islamophobia in the UK Tory party, but it may not be relevant here. Doug Weller  talk 10:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Hijab discrimination in the workplace
Hello, I am looking into adding a subsection under the manifestation of Islamophobia: Hijab Discrimination in the Workplace. The following citations are some of the articles that I found that might be helpful in creating this new section. Looking for any kind of feedback. Thank you.


 * Terrie C. Reeves, Arlise P. McKinney, Laila Azam, (2012) "Muslim women’s workplace experiences: implications for strategic diversity initiatives", Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, Vol. 32 Issue: 1, pp.49-67


 * Kelly A. Harrison. (2016). Hiding under the veil of “dress policy”: Muslim women, hijab, and employment discrimination in the United States. Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law, 17, 831.


 * Ali, S., Yamada, T., & Mahmood, A. (2015). Relationships of the Practice of Hijab, Workplace Discrimination, Social Class, Job Stress, and Job Satisfaction Among Muslim American Women. Journal of Employment Counseling, 52(4), 146-157.


 * Jasperse, M., Ward, C., & Jose, P. (2012). Identity, Perceived Religious Discrimination, and Psychological Well‐Being in Muslim Immigrant Women. Applied Psychology, 61(2), 250-271.


 * Pasha-Zaidi, N. (2015). Judging by Appearances: Perceived Discrimination among South Asian Muslim Women in the US and the UAE. Journal of International Women's Studies,16(2), 70-97.


 * Marcum, T., & Perry, S. (2010). DRESSED FOR SUCCESS: CAN A CLAIM OF RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION BE SUCCESSFUL? Labor Law Journal, 61(4), 184-191.


 * Klie, S. (2006). Muslims face discrimination in workplace. Canadian HR Reporter, 19(4), 1.


 * Rahmath, S., Chambers, L., & Wakewich, P. (2016). Asserting citizenship: Muslim women's experiences with the hijab in Canada. Women's Studies International Forum,58, 34.

Ieldab2 (talk) 05:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)


 * You need to provide good sources that link this to Islamophobia. Generally the justification for these measures is not hatred of Muslims but gender equality or separation of church and state, so it is not straight forward. The section should concentrate on why these measures are considered Islamophobia, rather than describe incidents. TFD (talk) 19:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Ieldab2 went ahead and added a section on hijab discrimination, using the above sources, without any that explicitly connected it to Islamaophobia, so I removed it. Please follow the advice given above: find sources that call hijab discrimination a form of Islamophobia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's the section I removed:

Hijab Discrimination in the Workplace
The issue of discrimination of Muslims is more prevalent among Muslim women due to the hijab being an observable declaration of faith. Particularly after the events of 9/11 and the coining of the term Islamophobia, some of Islamophobia’s manifestations are seen within the workplace. Women wearing the hijab are at risk of discrimination in their workplace because the hijab helps identify them for anyone who may hold Islamophobic attitudes. Their association with the Islamic faith automatically projects any negative stereotyping of the religion onto them. As a result of the heightened discrimination, some Muslim women in the workplace resort to taking off their hijab in hopes to prevent any further prejudice acts.

A number of Muslim women who were interviewed expressed that perceived discrimination also poses a problem for them. To be specific, Muslim women shared that they chose not to wear the headscarf out of fear of future discrimination.

The discrimination Muslim women face goes beyond affecting their work experience, it also interferes with their decision to uphold religious obligations. In result of discrimination Muslim women in the United States have worries regarding their ability to follow their religion because it might mean they are rejected employment. Ali, Yamada, and Mahmoud (2015) state that women of color who also follow the religion of Islam are considered to be in what is called “triple jeopardy”, due to being a part of two minority groups subject to discrimination.

Ali et al. (2015) study found a relationship between the discrimination Muslims face at work and their job satisfaction. In other words, the discrimination Muslim women face at work is associated with their overall feeling of contentment of their jobs, especially compared to other religious groups.

Muslim women not only experience discrimination whilst in their job environment, they also experience discrimination in their attempts to get a job. An experimental study conducted on potential hiring discrimination among Muslims found that in terms of overt discrimination there were no differences between Muslim women who wore traditional Islamic clothing and those who did not. However, covert discrimination was noted towards Muslim who wore the hijab, and as a result were dealt with in a hostile and rude manner. While observing hiring practices among 4,000 employers in the U.S, experimenters found that employers who self-identified as Republican tended to avoid making interviews with candidates who appeared Muslim on their social network pages.

One instance of hijab discrimination in the workplace that gained public attention and made it to the supreme court was EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch. The U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission took advantage of its power granted by Title VII and made a case for a young hijabi female who was qualified for a job, but was rejected in result of wearing the headscarf. Regardless of legislation that are there for protection of religious expressions like title VII and the first amendment rights, there remains a gap in security for Muslim women who wear the hijab as it continues to violate the “look” policy most companies uphold.

Discrimination levels differ depending on geographical location; for example, South Asian Muslims in the United Arab Emirates do not perceive as much discrimination as their South Asian counterparts in the U.S. Although, South Asian Muslim women in both locations are similar in describing discrimination experiences as subtle and indirect interactions. The same study also reports differences among South Asian Muslim women who wear the hijab, and those who do not. For non-hijabis, they reported to have experienced more perceived discrimination when they were around other Muslims.

Perceived discrimination is detrimental to well-being, both mentally and physically. However, perceived discrimination may also be related to more positive well-being for the individual. A study in New Zealand concluded that while Muslim women who wore the headscarf did in fact experience discrimination, these negative experiences were overcome by much higher feelings of religious pride, belonging, and centrality.


 * As can be seen, no connection is made between hijab discrimination and Islamophobia. The section would be fine in Hijab, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello. I appreciate your feedback and understand your point. I will try posting it under Hijab or Discrimination. Thank you. Ieldab2 (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * W ealso have an article on Employment discrimination and one on Workplace harassment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Restored content removed by. The sources clearly talk about a perceived "anti-Muslim sentiment" behind such discrimination against Muslim women, and "anti-Muslim sentiment" is literally Islamophobia. Sources do not need to use the exact word "Islamophobia" for inclusion in this article. Al-Andalusi (talk) 03:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Reverted again, per consensus on this page. Do not restore without having a consensus for its restoration. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that most sources for the most part do not strongly connect hijab issues to islamophobia. Those that do seem to include partisan sources such as CAIR. If we were to include something about hijab in the workplace, it would have be more limited in scope (to instances clearly tied to islamophobia - e.g. that hijab use allows islamophobes to identify Muslim women (however, this would seem to be less of a workplace issue per se)) and clearly attributed.Icewhiz (talk) 08:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 October 2018
Please remove point #9 under the subheading titled "Contrasting views on Islam".
 * 1) It is not part of the aforementioned "Runnymede report" which is the purpose of the list.
 * 2) TheReligionofPeace.com, a highly biased and bigoted source, violates WP:RS including WP:RSSELF and WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

Thank you. – Batreeq ( Talk ) (Contribs) 06:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. Seems like a clear-cut case, though the second point above isn't really germane. This list expressly reproduces a list in the Runnymede report. Any additional material or citations are out of place in the list. The last item should be removed. The citation of Kilpatrick for item 4 should be removed. The Runnymede report should probably be cited at the end of the sentence which introduces the list, to make it clear that it supports the entire list and not just the last item. If any other RSs discuss contrasting views of Islam with regard to the subject, they should be summarized separately. Eperoton (talk) 01:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Extremist websites are not usable as sources. // Liftarn (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Done - you might want to see the top entry here. Doug Weller talk 12:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Why all -phobias are left-wing concepts?
Are there any books that teach this concept? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:D51:E8B:E900:4407:F5C8:5E2C:3008 (talk) 02:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * They aren't. The term "Islamophobia" is often used by right-wing Islamists and Antisecularists. The right-wing Putin regime calls its critics "Russophobes". Pathologicizing social phenomena and attitudes is not really a leftist concept.--89.204.139.205 (talk) 12:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Funny how all these 'right wing' islamists and secularists are voting for left wing globalist parties in the west. Almost like these parties promotes values closer to them...OSB95 (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Runnymede report list
The list is expressly reproduced from the Runnymede report (The Runnymede report contrasted "open" and "closed" views of Islam, and stated that the following "closed" views are equated with Islamophobia), so the Runnymede report is the only citation appropriate for the list. Someone seems to have added a citation to a primary source that they felt exemplified one of the "closed" views. That's OR, since it's an interpretation of the primary source. It also incorrectly implies that the interpretation comes from the Runnymede report. Eperoton (talk) 00:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

misleading disambig
This article is about negative attitudes towards Muslims. the accusation of islamophobia is often used to disparage criticism and fear of Islam as a religion and political/moral system, not of Muslims as people. The German article gets it right: "this article is about hostility towards Muslims and Islam".--89.204.139.205 (talk) 12:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Got sources to back your claim up? // Liftarn (talk) 08:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Bar chart
The presence of a bar chart in the Islamophobia article indicating the percentage level of Islamophobia among the general public in different countries has become the object of opposing views and reverts. The sticking point is the presence of data from two different sources: a Pew research study in the case of ten European countries, and data from two other sources in the case of levels of Islamophobia in the U.S. and Canada.

The combination of data assembled from different sources into a single bar chart purporting to compare the data, is fraught with problems of interpretation and possible statistical bias, even if a trained statistician did it.

But this chart was not compiled by a trained statistician. It was created by a Wikipedia editor (or editors), combining these data in a way that suggests comparability of the underlying percentages. This is a direct violation of WP:SYNTH, which is not permitted. An example of the combined bar chart can be seen in section “Public opinion” of version 868258579 of the article.

The North American and European data coming from different sources cannot be combined in a single chart because it is both statistically unsound, and it violates policy. No reliable source exists combining these data in this way.

An alternative version of the article retains the bars for the European countries, and drops the North American data.

Comments from those trained in analysis and representation of statistical data, as well as those familiar with interpreting policy on original research and SYNTH would be most welcome. Mathglot (talk) 03:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The comments given in this version about temperature data from multiple sources in no way supports the multiple-source argument in the general case. Thermometers the world over wil record approximately the same temperature and no issue of data interpretation exists. Also, surveys of human opinion are vastly different types of data than temperature recorded by scientific instruments with no human input or interpretation needed. Mathglot (talk) 04:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. Polls have different methodologies and different std. errs. O3000 (talk) 12:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

NPOV/n discussion on inclusion of Islamophobia/Antisemitism/religious hate in Racism in X articles
Neutral point of view/Noticeboard may be of interest to talk page watchers here. The issue is whether to include Islamophobia, Antisemitism, and other religious hate in Racism in country X articles. Icewhiz (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Contrasting a phobia of muslims with a criticism of the ideology
The article's lead does not seem to differentiate between a fear of Muslims as a collective group of people and criticism, legitimate and illegitimate, of the religion's doctrines. The leading sentence defining it, while sourced to three very reputable dictionaries, is so broad that it could very well account for legitimate & scholarly criticism as covered by Criticism of Islam. I will refrain from changing this myself for now because I don't want to create an edit war or a POV issue. Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 07:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It does right in the head, in cursive. On that subject I notice you call it "ideology" so that tells something about your views. Just saying. // Liftarn (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It seems fine to me. I don't know that there is a lot of doctrine that is shared by all Muslims, just as there is little doctrine that is shared by all Christians. And the doctrines Muslims share, such as the existence of God, are often shared by other religious. TFD (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The whole page is a mess. It's mixing fear, hate and prejudice together. It needs an overhaul. Someone might hate islam but have no fear or prejudice of the ideology. The page needs taking out and rewriting, logically. PAC196060 (talk) 10:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, actually, that's not possible. "Hatred of Islam" is pretty much the dictionary definition of Islamophobia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, not only. Islamophobia is to Islam as antisemitism is to Judaism. // Liftarn (talk) 06:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. Jews are an ethnoreligious group. Muslims are not. Antisemitism typically has nothing to do with Judaism. Jayjg (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your opinion even if it's wrong. But as you may have heard sometime Wikipedia operates on reliable sources so your personal opinions on the matter are irrelevant. // Liftarn (talk) 08:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * To which reliable sources were you referring? Jayjg (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, in some cases - e.g. Islamophobia in Poland (and in some other countries in Europe) - Islamophobia is based on old antisemitic tropes and is very much also ethnic based (and not just religion). But in the general case - Jayjg is correct.Icewhiz (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Check date of first use in English
Can someone with a OED account check the date of the first English use, which is under their paywall? (http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/248449?) The article says 1923, while the source I've introduced states 1924. Thanks Azerty82 (talk) 11:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The OED says: "1923  Jrnl. Theol. Stud. 25 101   Certain writers in particular are blamed for their ‘Islamophobia’." Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, we'll keep 1923 then. Azerty82 (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The Astan Quds Razavi Central Library in Mashhad, in response to Islamophobia, simultaneously published 5 copies of the Qoranium in English, German, Italian, French and Spanish. The most prominent feature of the copies of this Quranium is the use of the name of Allah in writing all the text of the Quran and its translations into various languages, so that the name of Allah is repeated in each alphabet.[31] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrabei (talk • contribs) 16:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Revert
Removed personal project spam by Hrabei. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Islamohobia ONLY is the UNited States and Europe? Seems to target white people
I note that the introductory paragraph as follows is completely unverified (particularly the last line: Several scholars consider Islamophobia to be a form of xenophobia or racism, although the legitimacy of this definition is disputed. Some scholars view Islamophobia and racism as partially overlapping phenomena, while others dispute the relationship, primarily on the grounds that religion is not a race. The causes and characteristics of Islamophobia are also subjects of debate. Some commentators have posited an increase in Islamophobia resulting from the September 11 attacks, the rise of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and other terror attacks in Europe and the United States by Islamic extremists. Some have associated it with the increased presence of Muslims in the United States and in the European Union, while others view it as a response to the emergence of a global Muslim identity.

I also note that there is almost no discussion on Islamophobia in countries like China (one line about the Uyghur population and almost nothing on the concentration camps) and India (where Muslims have almost no citizenship rights)

In other words, Islamophobia is seen by the article's authors as a white/European problem, when evidence (above) suggests that the problem is far worse in other areas of the world. The article therefore needs new authorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.185.11.229 (talk) 08:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


 * As Andrew Shyrock wrote, "Islamophobia is almost always associated with the U.S. and Europe, although related strains of it are well developed in India and China, in several African states with sizable Muslim minorities and even in Muslim majority countries...." Chinese persecution of Uighurs is generally seen as part of China's mistreatment of ethnic minorities occupying the fringes of the country. Islamophobic rhetoric is sometimes used to justify their actions to a Western audience. TFD (talk) 13:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Where is that quote from? It's not in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.185.11.229 (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The statement you made here is directly germane to some comments I made on the talk page of the Pishan hostage crisis page. It seems to me that some blatantly biased journalism from a Chinese state-run tabloid was calling a group of Uyghurs terrorists without clear evidence to that effect- there may be a bit of Islamophobia in that article and Wikipedia's coverage of that event. Is there anywhere on Wikipedia I can go to get the article I'm referencing cleaned up or reviewed somehow? Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2020
Islamophobia: Its a coverup word used by Muslims to hide their crime. Narenin (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not done - Unsourced, biased. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Gathering of eagles.jpg

Image concerns
Referring to the image of Arun Pathak & the "1992 demolition of the Babri Masjid mosque"; how is this a case of Islamophobia? This image isn't suitable for the article and the caption is leading in nature. DTM (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Islamicphobia
We should hava a redirect to this page if some types Islamicphobia instead of Islamophobia. Doremon764 (talk) 02:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Your suggestion is not clear enough, can you elaborate a little further.
 * Bookku (talk) 12:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Biden said Islamicphobic instead of Islamophobia. So we do a redirect so people know it's the same thing Doremon764 (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh Okay, I didn't know that. By the way I find myself bemused who decides on languages and terminologies ? and what if those are not fair enough?
 * Wikipedians decided to retain wording 'social distancing' and not to shift over to 'physical distancing' though the later one is more fair.
 * Here in this case 'Muslim phobia' is being unnecessarily conflated with Islamophobia and now some one Biden adds in new 'IslamicPhobic' and expects the rest of the world to accept.
 * Bookku (talk) 08:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources and biased statements based on unreliable sources
This is a one sided article which paddles Pro-Islamic and Islamic apologists views only. Examples (not the exhaustive list) are given below and which need to be corrected, the whole article needs reverification if the statements in article match with what the source says. Protected Islamophobia article has multiple issues:

Example1: Modi/BJP bashing based on opinon pieces in newspapers, hence can't be counted as WP:RELIABLE)

Example2: Misrepresentation of sources to incorrectly show biased Hindu attitude towards Islam e.g. claim in the article  misrepresents this source cited with the claim.

The Islamophobia section has dubious and outright misleading phrasing "A report from Australia has found that the levels of Islamophobia among Buddhists and Hindus are significantly higher than among followers of other religions."

whereas the source actually says "There are significant differences in Islamophobia scores among respondents with different religious affiliations. Firstly, as one would expect, Muslims have the lowest Islamophobia score: 1.3 compared with the national average of 2.2. They are followed by followers of Judaism and people with no religion, who have lower Islamophobia scores than the national average. Except for Anglicans all Christian groups have Islamophobia scores higher than the national average. Except for Anglicans all Christian groups have Islamophobia scores higher than the national average of 2.2. Among the Christian groups Presbyterians have the highest score followed by Greek Orthodox, Uniting Church, Baptists, Lutherans, Catholics and ‘other Christians’.Among the followers of non-Christian religious affiliations, the Buddhists and Hindus, two of the fastest growing religions in Australia, have significantly higher Islamophobia scores."

The table 12 on page 14 has the Islamophobia rated on a qualitative nominal scale. On the "nominal scale", 1 means NO BIAS or a islamoPHILE (non-muslim who loves muslims), 2.5 means AVERAGE or NEUTRAL (anti and pro bias coexist in equal measure),  5 means VERY BIASED (any value above 2.5 represent the person has more anti-islam bias compared to pro-islam bias they behold).

Source actually shows Hindus in Australia have 2.5 score i.e. below (either neutral or hold co-existing feeling of more pro-islam over anti-islam), article however misrepresents it as if ozzie hindus are anti muslim. This is dangerous, because such articles are then pipelinked elsewhere and used in edit wars to silence other with wrong facts.

Your action needed: Remove the statements from article related to 2 exmaples above. Please add Template:Multiple_issues and Template:Systemic bias on top of the article. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 07:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Add a section on "Victim playing" by muslims by citing Islamophobia against the legitimate criticism of islam
Wikipedia policies require eiditng based on the "rational" modern scientific rules e.g. reliable sources, unbiased editing, repesent diverse range of perspectives including proponents views as well as critics views. This article currently represents only the "muslims are victims" perspective. It does not include the critique (critcisim, counter and counter-counter), e.g. how islamophobia is also misused by playigg victim' e.g. even on wiikipedia talkpages itself.

Wikipedia policies manadate "right of freedom" which includes the
 * "right of freedom of religion", i.e. right to believe in religion,
 * "right of freedom FROM religion", i.e. quit religion without being persecuted, islam remains the only religion with death sentence for blasphemy in 13 islamic nations.
 * "right of freedom to criticise ihumane acts justified and legitimized in the name of religion" (e.g. pedophilia, misogyny, slave trading, jizya on dhimmi kafirs, and so on, thats why wikipedia allows articles on criticim of religions and their founders including Criticism of Islam and Criticism of Muhammad).

Many editors are scared of countering systemetic pro-islamic bias on wikipedia for the fear of being "incorrectly labelled as islamophobic" and being trageted. This may take the form of some editors "playing victim" to rally other muslims by crying "islam under attack" in case of legitimiate criticism of islam. Wikipedia is not a tool for proselytizing or whitewashing the uncomfortable truth, nor wikipedia is a platform for executing "online death sentence" for those editors who try to implement the spirit, principals and policies of wikipedia by taking on leigitimate concen of systematic wide-spread pro-islamic bias across numerous wikipedia articles. This bias works in two ways,
 * (a) keeping islam related articles represented from the "islamic-proselytizers" (supremacist agenda, islam is best and purest with no flaws), and
 * (b) "Islamic-lobbists" and "islamic-apologists"" neutralising criticism of islamic by trying to keep it out by "playing victim", rallying others with "islam under attack", repeated reverts and causing multipel objections to tire out or scare off other editors (war of attrition and |misinformation jihad], e.g. even the term "information jihad" has been kept out of wikipedia and article on jihad eventhough huge number of reliable sources exist on it). 58.182.176.169 (talk) 07:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Why don't you just read the article before you criticize it? The article does include critique. In fact it has a whole section called Islamophobia. You playing the victim card here is ridiculous. Just look at all the Islam articles. They are full of critique. In fact Wikipedia even publishes the whole Muhammad cartoons upfront (when even most newspapers didn't). The article on Muhammad is full of pictures of the islamic prophet (even though Muslims don't really like that). I think the bias on the English Wikipedia is clearly on the other side. If anyone has to fear an "online death sentence" than it is Muslims, not those who criticize them. In fact, I could even prove that to you, if I wouldn't get blocked for providing such a proof.  --Raphael1 19:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Article needs more non-muslim editors as watchers
To add WP:BALANCE by removing systematic WP:BIAS, please invite more editors from diverse backgrounds to add this article to their watchlist. Start by adding this to your watchlist. If bias continues, flag the editors/admins with bias and get them banned (at least from this article) for having a peristent WP:DISRUPTIVE pattern.

Thank you. 07:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Media and Islamophobia
This source can be used in the matter of Islamophobia and the media: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/20/muslim-terror-attacks-press-coverage-study }} 46.32.121.140 (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Islamophobia in many countries but they don't have a precise page ('See also' section)
Islamophobia articles seem to only have been created for the West, Poland, Israel, & China. Myanmar & India for instance don't have them (with Violence against Muslims in India & Persecution of Muslims in Myanmar being the closest ones to the topic). A google search for sources also indicates plenty of other countries that could warrant a page but don't have one (e.g Cambodia, Thailand, Czech Republic, Sri Lanka, Hungary, Central African Republic, the Balkans etc. Some of these have little to no coverage on Wikipedia without even a separate article.

So the question is, should the noteworthy cases be added & merged, like Islamophobia in India or Islamophobia in Cambodia? Personally though, I'm a little lazy when it comes to creating new Wikipedia pages... Donkey Hot-day (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

=="Islamophobia is the fear, hatred of, or prejudice against the Islamic religion or Muslims generally, "especially when seen as a geopolitical force or the source of terrorism" (Like Christchurch mosque shootings ???)==

Terrorist Brenton Tarrant is a victim when in the name of Western fascism he has taken up arms and murdered over 50 innocent people just for being Muslim?

This sentence was most likely added by an anti-Muslim activist (pro islamophobia propaganda) to trivialize Islamiphobia, no discussion about it. For me, it has nothing to do in the introduction, we can refine them as a point of view among critics of Islamophobia but not in the introduction, never, the edit is blocked 2A01:E34:EC20:41A0:3950:732F:C040:65FC (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2020
Please add this helpful link in the Salman Rushdie quote: "an addition to the vocabulary of Humpty Dumpty Newspeak" 109.175.155.100 (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed the entire phrase. Most people would be confused what Rushdie means by Humpty Dumpty Newspeak unless they're familiar with both Lewis Carroll and George Orwell and realize that it's not the nursery rhyme; and the quote still works without it. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 21:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Unverified opening paragraph
I note that previous attempts to fix this have been archived without comment:

The opening paragraph is basically completely unsubstantiated opinion (EMPHASIS MINE):

The meaning of the term continues to be debated, and some (WHO?) view it as problematic. Several scholars (WHO?) consider Islamophobia to be a form of xenophobia or racism, although the legitimacy of this definition is disputed (BY WHO?). Some scholars (WHO?) view Islamophobia and racism as partially overlapping phenomena, while others (WHO?) dispute the relationship, primarily on the grounds that religion is not a race. The causes and characteristics of Islamophobia are also subjects of debate (BY WHO?). Some commentators (WHO?) have posited an increase in Islamophobia resulting from the September 11 attacks, the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and other terror attacks in Europe and the United States by Islamic extremists. Some (WHO?) have associated it with the increased presence of Muslims in the United States and in the European Union, while others (WHO?) view it as a response to the emergence of a global Muslim identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.217.167.46 (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The lead doesn't need references, since it is a summary of the article. If you want to add references, though, feel free to do so. TFD (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Its not a summary though, it is making claims which are unsupported in the article. A good lead should be neutral and a global statement about what the topic is, not pushing an ideological argument. Further, if the points were supported by the article, it should be easy enough to transpose the references into the "summary". It all just makes the article look poorly researched and un-authoritative like most of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.217.167.46 (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Introduction might potentially violate code of conduct
"..., especially when seen as a geopolitical force or the source of terrorism." The same thing applies to other forms of antisemitism and other things such as racism in general, but is rightly rejected as an introduction on those articles as it would be seen as confirming the views discussed. This sentence would make a lot more sense to be either removed downright or kept and debunked more extensively further down in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C27:6E50:E50C:4344:99D:116C (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Introductory section bias: Move second paragraph to "Debate on the term and its limitations" section
There are several comments here regarding bias in the introductory section. I agree. Placing such emphasis conflicting definitions of the term not only makes the article harder to understand, it frames the term itself in conflict and, thus, in a negative light. An alternative approach would be to provide a definition that is broad enough to encompass the majority of the (non-fringe) definitions, even if they may differ. The second paragraph could be moved under the section Debate on the term and its limitations section. The invalidating effect of this paragraph is illustrated by one of the citations in the article: "Miles and Brown write that ... 'the existence of different 'Islamophobias' does not invalidate the concept of Islamophobia any more than the existence of different racisms invalidates the concept of racism.'" There are numerous other definitions of "*phobias". It is worth looking at those as a point of reference. The Universal code of conduct section regarding bias is relevant, especially since this term affects an extremely broad and diverse group of people. Zukisama (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The definition given is not correct. Islamophobia would be fear of Islam.  Hatred or dislike of Islam would be misoislamos.  There are people who dislike Islam, but who are not necessarily afraid of it.  Prejudice against Islam would be anti-Islamic.  Wikipedia is probably not the best tool for use as a dictionary.

Mental disorder
Who are responsible for this mental disorder(Islamophobia). Ajay Banshkar (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not understand your question. Can you please explain what you mean? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Contradiction in lead
There seems to be a contradiction in the lead; in that it opens by defining what Islamophobia is and then says "the meaning of the term continues to be debated". There certainly is debate over the scope and precise nature of Islamophobia, but meaning is the wrong word to use here I think. What are people's thoughts - does it require a change? Obscurasky (talk) 08:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ok, well I've given it a tweak, without removing any information. If anyone has any objection, can we talk through them here first. Many thanks, Obscurasky (talk) 00:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Away with a quantification
This is not clear-cut matter, where we reasonably assume that one side of the argument mostly include few fringe scholars, while another side of the argument is a mainstream. This means that any quantification (some vs most, and so on) is undue, and implies that we somehow know for sure that a number of one group exceeds the number of another group of scholars.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  21:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Greetings, both of you seem to be in difference of opinion. I suppose that would make an interesting discussion and others to can join in. Looking forward to both of you joining in here. Interested to know what edits changes are being attempted. Thanks and warm regards &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39;, as you can see I have removed your section title (you didn't checked talk page before posting?), because I initiated my discussion just hours ago, so I think it would be better (and fair) to merge yours with mine. Thanks.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  09:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of source material
This article (as of the date of this post) says

"A report from Australia has found that the levels of Islamophobia among Buddhists and Hindus are significantly higher than among followers of other religions.".

However, the cited source says something very different.

In page 15, the text reads "Among the followers of non-Christian religious affiliations, the Buddhists and Hindus, two of the fastest growing religions in Australia, have significantly higher Islamophobia scores." Since there aren't very many non-christians in Australia other than Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and a smattering of European religions and athiests/agnostics, the article essentially states that "Islamophobia" (sic) is allegedly more prevalent among Buddhists and Hindus than in Jews or the others, but not necessarily more than Christians, an assertion that they support with the associated tabulated data.115.187.44.236 (talk) 08:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Firstly, it's a fundamental policy of Wikipedia that editors should assume good-faith - and I've edited your section title. That aside, I agree that there has been a misinterpretation of the source material (although you're quite wrong to say that "there aren't very many non-Christians in Australia" since only around half the population of that country identifies as Christian. See here Irreligion in Australia).


 * The report actually says "Except for Anglicans, all Christian groups have Islamophobia scores higher than the national average" and "Among the followers of non-Christian religious affiliations, Buddhists and Hindus [also] have significantly higher Islamophobia scores." I've amended the article accordingly. Obscurasky (talk) 12:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Additional problematic claims
The following statement can be found in this article (as of the date of this post)

"There are growing instances of Islamophobia in Hindi cinema, or Bollywood, in films such as Aamir (2008), New York (2009) and My Name is Khan (2010), which corresponds to a growing anti-minorities sentiment that followed the resurgence of the Hindu right.[131][132]"

Um, okay. The two sources cites in support of this claim are:


 * Orientalism, terrorism and Bombay cinema, Karen Gabriel and P.K. Vijayan, Journal of Postcolonial Writing Vol. 48, No. 3, July 2012, 299–310 - In this article, the term "Hindu Right" is mentioned but once, in page 301, where it says "As significantly, the rationale for the Indian nation state also came to be articulated as a culturo-civilizational one in discourses of religious nationalism particularly after the 1980s rise of the Hindu Right and the 1990s programmatic endorsement of liberalization-privatization-globalization (LPG)." Once we get past the left-wing bafflegab, there does not seem to be any real content in this sentence that relates the rise of the whatever-whomever to criticism of Islam in Bollywood specifically. How do you get from this statement to "There are growing instances of .." bleep-bloop-blap without committing the original sin of wikipedia?


 * To be fair, the next para does say "This eruptive right-wing nationalism was characterized not only by..." giggidy-giggidy "..., but by anti-minorityism, anti-Muslim rhetoric and practice ..." foobar-foobar the end. However, it mentions "anti-minorityism" (is that supposed to be English or some bizarre communist pidgin?) and "anti-Muslim rhetoric" separately, rather than claim that the former leads to the latter. While such a claim can be "inferred" by a third party, that would, again, be original research, which is not allowed on wikipedia. Finally, the abstract of the article states something to the effect of "Bombay cinema – which has engaged with these concerns ... and is going “global” in unprecedented ways ...", meaning that the central thesis of the authors is that Bollywood is following global trends concerning the criticism of Islam (Monkey see, monkey do), rather than articulating a criticism that emerges from within India. This is not correspond with the content in the article, which implies that criticism has grown in isolation due to internal factors.


 * The second reference can be found here. The pages cites are 53-64. This article appears to be written in slightly more comprehensible English, at least. However, it appears to be a repeat of the previous source (written by the same author), so I fail to see how it contributes to the article.

I understand that it's generally preferred that wikipedia editors assume good faith, and I'm inclined to do so in this present discourse. However, given the egregious misrepresentation, and the length of time that this has remained on wikipedia, it becomes very hard to assume good faith on the part of the authors and maintainers of this article. Perhaps a review of the entire material, with a paradigm based on a zero-trust model, is in order for this article... 115.187.44.236 (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Talk pages are not a forum for discussing the article's subject and I think it's unlikely that anyone will read your post. If you have a point about the article, you're more likely to get a response if you make it clearly and succinctly. Obscurasky (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So much for "assuming good faith". Never mind 115.187.44.236 (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CELINEZ.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2019 and 2 January 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Barrieh1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ToxicScorpes.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Nusrat Ghani's case
This item can probably used here. -- M h hossein   talk 17:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * This is a news item and also pending investigation so no its not for an encyclopaedia Robynthehode (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Robynthehode - Not necessarily. Keep in mind that lots of Wikipedia's content is made up of data from news reports. I do think that this could be a good addition to Islamophobia in the United Kingdom if not here. Dunutubble (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Requesting inputs
Greetings,

Adequate and nuanced overview for even non– Muslim audience is expected out of the articles Muslims and Muslim world. Whether the articles are achieving that purpose adequately? Requesting and expecting proactive participation in providing inputs from non–Muslim audience too along with Muslim users.

Since the article Muslim world is tagged various improvements it can not be submitted to formal review process still I feel the article deserves more inputs for content improvement.

Requesting your visit to the articles
 * Muslims and
 * Muslim world
 * and provide your inputs @


 * Talk:Muslims/Archive 8 and
 * Talk:Muslim world

Thanks

&#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 06:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

This page is obviously patrolled by useful idiots
If you actually look at google scholar, a lot of criticism is included in the academic debate of how nonsensical this term is. To summarise sources, it's a little like a bunch of hens being accused, every time a fox comes into their coop, of being "Foxophobic". Phil of rel (talk) 01:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As opposed to useless idiots who start threads here claiming that 'academic debate' exists, but don't provide either citations, or any indication as to what revisions to article content are actually being proposed? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Gee, you sure have a chip on your shoulder, AndytheGrump. You don't believe in magical sky wizards, do you? LOL Phil of rel (talk) 01:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * BTW, just look through scholar.google.com on the topic Islamophobia, like I talked about in my OP. I can see why there's a negative correlation between believing in a magical sky fairy and IQ from reading what you say. Phil of rel (talk) 01:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Technical and Scientific Communication
— Assignment last updated by Egladfelter (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Gove's rejection of antisemitism definition
It is surprising that UK minister Michael Gove's rejection of any adoption of an antisemitism definition by the UK government isn't covered. This seems important https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/islamophobia-definition-conservative-government-michael-gove-b2213075.html 82.11.163.59 (talk) 09:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you're probably referring to the UK Government's rejection of a definition for Islamophobia, not antisemitism. In any case, this page is about Islamophobia in a worldwide context, and it would incorrect to single out one country. It is mentioned on the Islamophobia in the United Kingdom page. Obscurasky (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Criticism of the term and ex Muslims
Should be a section on critics of the concept of islamophobia, particularly for the idea it applies to insults/hatred of Islam itself and not just Muslims. A mention of how ex-Muslims view the term, maybe even with some examples of the term being used against ex-Muslims who speak about why they left Islam?

Example by British leftist ex-Muslim Maryam Namazie https://maryamnamazie.com/defining-islamophobia/ 217.43.220.213 (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect language
Writer Brendan O'Neil is not a conservative (mentioned here), he's an ardent Marxist socialist who rejects social liberalism. In short, not a real conservative, since Marxism and conservatism are diametrically opposed. 2.98.183.194 (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair comment. Clearly a mistake. Removed. CIreland (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No, he used to be a Marxist but converted. There's no evidence he rejected social liberalism since his conversion, because his original party endorses it. TFD (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Best to leave him without an adjective. "Conservative" is not sourceable, so far as I can tell, which is hardly surprising given the views listed in our article about him. Then again, I can't find any consistent characterization at all. CIreland (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * A description is required if we mention him because we need to explain what type of perspective he presents. So really our only other option is to remove his criticism. TFD (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Put a description in if you can source it. Not sure I agree that it's "required" though; the inclusion of someone's perspective should be determined by their expertise in the area or their particular relevance to the topic at hand, not by our ability to find a pithy adjective to characterize their opinions. That being said, I am not exactly convinced that O'Neill is especially qualified - in fact the whole "Commentary" section could do with pruning of the many random talking heads it currently has. CIreland (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * O'Neil was expressing a view consistent with right-wing ideology: "'Islamophobia' is an elite invention, a top-down conceit, designed to chill open discussion about religion and values and to protect one particular religion from blasphemy. The war on Islamophobia is in essence a demand for censorship." Furthermore, he is not an expert on the topic. The only reason to include him would be as an example of how right-wing people view this. In fact, his views are so far from mainstream that conservative is a misleading description. It's certainly not the position of the Conservative Party of the UK. TFD (talk) 04:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I would agree with all of that. CIreland (talk) 10:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


 * O'Neil is a Marxist and socialist. Just read any of his pieces about trade union strike action or the free market. Very left-wing but attempting to sound otherwise with anti-liberal social opinions. 2.98.183.194 (talk) 11:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Brendan O'Neill (columnist) describes himself as a Marxist Libertarian – an interesting combination. It would not be correct to describe him as conservative, or right wing. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


 * And what's even more ironic is that Marxism is not libertarian in any shape or form, it's arguably entirely authoritarian as it seeks to confiscate property, destroy individualism and enforce coercive collectivism. 2.98.183.194 (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * A form of Libertarian socialism but that was 4 years ago. IP, your opinions aren't of much use, we need reliable sources.
 * Reading his article is tricky because not enough dates are given. But he writes for conservative journals/newspapers, that's clear enough. Eg The Australian, the Daily Telegraph, The Sun, all conservative, worked with the right-wing Centre for Independent Studies 2020, opposes same-sex marriage, he's anti-transgender, BLM, etc. espouses the usual right-wing nonsense about Covid. He's clearly shifted his politics. Doug Weller  talk 14:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not for Wikipedia editors to use their assessments of the political views of a journalist - that is for independent reliable sources. And in any event, writing for a particular publication does not mean that the writer shares the political stance of that publication – that does not make sense. And I suggest you delete the comments you have made above about Covid, which might be construed as defamatory. Sweet6970 (talk)
 * I am not making any suggestions for the article. My comments may be original research but ” This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.” As for defamatory, I hope you aren’t threatening me.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 15:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * DW: BLP applies to Talk pages. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPN is the place to go then. If there's consensus there I'll find another way to described them. Doug Weller  talk 16:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * to suggest that Doug's comments are a violation of BLP is a stretch. Suggesting that it could be construed as defamatory would be dangerously close to crossing the line of WP:THREAT.   Butler Blog   (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have not threatened anyone with legal action. I have pointed out that BLP applies to Talk pages – see WP:BLP Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, and project pages. Your reference to WP:THREAT is entirely inappropriate. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not really a legal threat per se (in my opinion) but the way we would address it is saying that it violates some provision of WP:BLP or MOS:WTW. said he hoped it was not a WP:THREAT. Defamation is more of a legal term. I suggest you take this directly to WP:BLP/N. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not a threat in any way whatsoever. It is a reminder that WP:BLP applies to Talk pages. It makes no sense at all to suggest that I am threatening anyone with anything at all, let alone legal action for defamation, which would be the prerogative of Mr O’Neill. And in case anyone is in doubt about this, I am not Brendan O’Neill. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok no need to belabor this. Go to WP:BLPN if you want broader consensus about how to describe him. See WP:WTW if you like. We don't necessarily use self descriptions, typically descriptions in reliable sources are preferred. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We should rarely use self-descriptions, they are basically self-publicity and too often are misleading. Doug Weller  talk 18:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, unless it is a WP:SKYISBLUE type scenario. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As DIYeditor said, there's no need to belabor this, and I don't intend to, but based on your response to me, I do believe I am due a clarification to you. I didn't say that you did threaten anyone.  You used the phrase "construed as defamatory" which I noted was "dangerously close".  In other words, you need to read the comments of other editors with the same careful nuance that you expect from others.   Butler Blog   (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Also while the IP may have a point about the adequacy of the "conservative" descriptor, they are also straight off a month block for some pretty egregious racist vandalism in this topic area so assumptions of good faith should be limited, to put it mildly. CIreland (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not see how the IP’s block log affects whether Brendan O’Neill should be described as ‘conservative’. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't; I said it was a fair comment. But it adds a complexion to the FORUMy remarks to which Doug was replying. CIreland (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Why on earth is O'Neil's opinion (published on his party's website) considered DUE here? Why would we consider him an authority on this topic? BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I would support cutting that content. In general, the Commentary section could use a trim. There's enough quality secondary coverage of views on Islamophobia that self-published or op-ed opinions aren't needed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yup. O'Neil appears to have no subject-matter expertise, making his quote entirely undue, regardless of how his politics are characterised. He's as entitled to have an opinion on the subject as anyone else, but we are under no obligation to provide a platform for it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I also agree. Much of the commentary is unsupported by secondary sources establishing weight. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * O'Neil's opinion/comment published in Spiked (magazine) should be removed per WP:UNDUE. JimRenge (talk) 09:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Then the commentary should be removed by somebody. And I myself am not responsible for any offensive vandalism, and any leftovers of that should be removed or hidden from view. 2.98.183.194 (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I've removed the O'Neil quote, per the above comments. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Long article
Considering wikipedia is from the west and in the west islam is a minoritarian religion, this article seems strangely long and detailed. It almost feels like propaganda: it repeats over and over the same concept. 80.117.16.87 (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What's the difference if it's minority or majority in the West? Propaganda in what sense? O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And in any case the IP's comments are useless without specifics based on guidelines and policies. Doug Weller  talk 16:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Concur with Doug. The most relevant policy seems to be Article size, which roughly seems to point to 10,000 words as the maximum desirable length. This article is at 10,168, so I guess we're on the edge. IP - If you want to pursue this, I'd suggest pointing out what sections of the article should be moved or spun off. NickCT (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I’d at least move everything after the first paragraph to its own subsection called “Arguments for ..” or Rationals. (It’s also an immediately defensive toned article when it should be neutral.) SalaDitman (talk) 12:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2023
The phrase “the Islamophobia industry” was coined by Nathan Lean, not Nathan Lean and John Esposito as the article incorrectly indicates. The phrase was the subject and title of Lean’s 2012 book. Esposito wrote the Foreword but was not credited a co-author. 2603:6080:E911:1E00:BC49:B5F:D989:B145 (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The book on Amazon seems to clearly support the forward was by John Esposito:
 * https://www.amazon.com/Islamophobia-Industry-Right-Manufactures-Muslims/dp/0745332536 2A02:587:1981:6F00:458E:74CE:C48:D99E (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This material does need reworking, being primary sourced. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

RAND research paper
The RAND nonprofit research organization has a paper written for the US Air Force that would be helpful to add; on pages 7-13 they outline the range of behavior and violence of different sects of Islam, giving more nuance to the topic. Indonesia for example is nothing like Afghanistan, despite both being Islamic countries.

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2004/RAND_MG246.pdf 62.74.225.38 (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Your source does not mention Islamophobia hence is not relevant to this article. TFD (talk) 10:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh so it’s only about the term not the fear people have? By comparison the article on Arachnophobia isn’t just about the term but goes into people’s fears of spiders. 5.54.23.102 (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like you haven’t read the lead. Doug Weller  talk 18:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I did, but I didn’t realize there really was a semantic drift in -phobia from fear to hatred, and it occurred to me after that Wikipedia isn’t original work so would come across as original work without the term. 84.225.175.239 (talk) 02:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This sort of drift in meaning occurs from time to time. And although it isn't actually a drift in meaning, the etymology of "antisemitism" is a bit similar, ie the etymology of the word doesn't relate to what it means. Doug Weller  talk 07:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Anti would have been more what I’d have expected right, even additional means like aversion are still pretty far from hatred in meaning to me. SalaDitman (talk) 06:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The suffix phobia does not come directly from the Greek word for fear but from the word hydrophobia, which for centuries was a word for rabies. Since rabies is an illness that makes people go mad, the term was applied to a range of psychological conditions where subjects exhibited fear, hatred or contempt.
 * Later abolitionists applied the suffix to racism, calling it colorphobia. This opened up its use in the political sphere with terms such as sinophobia or hatred of Chinese. So today, hatred of Russia is called Russophobia, while hatred of the U.S. is called anti-Americanism.
 * Why are people from China called Chinese while people from America are called Americans? Why not Chinans or Americese? It's just the way English evolved and we have to accept that words or terms often do not have obvious meanings based on their constituent parts. TFD (talk) 12:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, Arachnophobia is a good comparison. This article is about the fear of Islam, while arachnophobia is about the fear of spiders. This article is not about Islam, just as arachnophobia is not about spiders. You wouldn't use a source about spiders that did not mention arachnophobia, whether it used that term or not, just as we would not use a source about Islam that did not mention Islamophobia, whether it used that term or not. TFD (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah makes sense thanks. 84.225.175.239 (talk) 02:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone disagree that at least some of this article is covered by Discretionary sanctions?
Looking at it seems pretty clear that Indian related material is part of the article. Doug Weller talk 08:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Which parts of this article are covered by discretionary sanctions? This talk page displays a warning about the Arab-Israeli conflict, but this conflict isn't mentioned in the article. Jarble (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Maajid Nawaz who has the same template. Quilliam (think tank) which clearly needs an alert. "Philosopher Michael Walzer says that fear of religious militancy, such as "of Hindutva zealots in India, of messianic Zionists in Israel," the source "The Islamophobia Industry and the Demonization of Palestine: Implications for American Studies". The mention of Counter-jihadist outfits. I'm sure you could find more.  Doug Weller  talk 15:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that be true of many articles? In recent years, Russia has been accused of interfering in the elections of many countries. Does that mean that all those articles now come under discretionary sanctions for Eastern European politics? TFD (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If the article involves “Eastern Europe and the Balkans” yes. But obviously not countries outside that area, I believe you misunderstand that sanction area. Doug Weller  talk 18:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)