Talk:Stop Islamization of America

Included Response from Pamela Geller to CAIR Remark About Smoke Screen
"Pamela Geller, who leads Stop Islamization of America, said the adverts were designed to help provide resources for Muslims who were fearful of leaving the faith."

Serious POV issues
- This article lacked a section describing its ideology, so I added it. Unfortunately, it is reverted/vandalized again and again by some users. - The first paragraph contains a lot of POV, pejorative language, without mentioning the large base of support the group has outside of PC academia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A442:3456:0:5453:8E5A:F119:44D (talk) 00:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * A claim of a large base of support cannot hinge on self-published sources. What independent source is reporting that? —C.Fred (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree, but I think we can and should have an ideology section that can neutrally describe the SIOA's platform based on about-self sources without the self-serving claim of support. A discussion thread above entitled "Ideology" suggests a good source, better than what the IP has been pushing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That would be fine to add. Needs to be attributed and all that jazz, but per WP:SPS/ABOUTSELF, seems okay.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 19:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * On the larger issue of the article's anti-SIOA bias the problems start with the lead's opening two sentences which are basically polemical. Yes, lots of presumably reliable sources may have described the organization as it is described in those opening sentences but is that the standard description that most use, especially at the OUTSET of articles on the organization. It seems as if some editors had the goal of completely discrediting the organization from the the get-go. I just took a look at the opening paragraph for our article on ISIS. It is much more restrained and encyclopedic. Motsebboh (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . If you're contending that the first two sentences don't reflect most reliable sources, then please provide sources that back up that contention. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , You seem to have missed my point. I could explain, but perhaps you should go back and reread what I said first. Motsebboh (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I think DrF is right here. We cannot compare this page to ISIS as so much more has been written about ISIS. The lead sentence is (unnecessarily) sourced and does seem to accurately reflect the body of the article.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 21:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just getting started, I found this source: . Notice that the reporter says "critics call it the opposite -- an intolerant hate group opposed to freedom of religion" Motsebboh (talk) 21:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC) Here's another reliable news source which doesn't directly describe the organization as a hate group or as intolerant but rather tells its readers that critics describe it this way: . Motsebboh (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC) In this CBS-NYC affiliate news story SIOA is described as a "pro-Israel advocacy group known for publicly criticizing Islam". Motsebboh (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Good start. The CNN one is useful as it lays out the various positions and attributes them. I'll look for more sources and post tomorrow (gotta go to sleep). There's a lotta crap to sift through to find RS though.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 05:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the sources, Motsebboh. I understand there's room for disagreement here, but my general take is that if one batch of reliable sources ("batch #1") takes sides and states a position in their own voice (e.g. "The SIOA is Islamophobic") and a second batch of reliable sources ("batch #2") sticks with he-said-she-said (e.g. "Critics say the SIOA is Islamophobic, supporters say it's not"), then we can and should cite batch #1, as the two batches of sources do not in fact contradict each other. I believe this is supported by our neutrality guideline. It's also a practical approach because certain outlets like CNN and the Economist have an institutional aversion to taking sides; articles about controversial subjects shouldn't be held hostage by these types of sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And by the way I have no objection to describing the SIOA as "pro-Israel" (and citing the CBS source) in addition to the other adjectives we use. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Sources and proposed lead change
Below are some more recent sources I've gathered regarding the characterization of SOIA/AFDI.
 * Slate - Refers to group as part of a lobby that supports the spread of "anti-Muslim ideas and rhetoric".
 * NY Daily News - Covered the SPLC's labeling of the group as a hate group. Quotes Geller as saying AFDI/SIOA as a "human rights group".
 * Time - "Pamela Geller, a founder of the anti-Muslim group Stop Islamization of America..."
 * The Telegraph 2 - "Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, who co-founded anti-Muslim group Stop Islamization of America..."
 * Newsweek - "American bloggers Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, co-founders of anti-Muslim group, Stop Islamization of America,..."
 * Haaretz - Describes Geller as "flamboyant and unfiltered representative for the anti-Muslim far-right on the Internet." Next sentence say her group is the AFDI. Goes on to say the AFDI calls for "discriminatory actions against Muslims". Also calls Geller anti-Muslim in this quote: "The Anti-Defamation League, which Geller attacks regularly, is a frequent critic of her anti-Muslim activism." Refers again to the AFDI as anti-Muslim in saying: "JCF’s contributions to anti-Muslim groups aren’t limited to the AFDI."
 * Washington Times (generally considered strongly to the politically right, a QUESTIONABLE source) - "...Pamela Geller, an anti-Islamic activist whose American Freedom Defense Initiative has been designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
 * NY Post 2 - "...siding with Pam Geller and her pro-Israel American Freedom Defense Initiative" (second NYPost uses "pro-Israel" in title)
 * International Business Times - "Gellar is the co-founder of the group “Stop Islamization of America,” an anti-Islam group that aims to educate Americans on the religion’s “domination and expansionism.” The Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit civil rights organization famous for defending victims of hate crimes, labeled Gellar’s organization a hate group.
 * ABC News - "...group known for being anti-Islam."
 * Time (from 2013) - The American Freedom Defense Initiative, a conservative organization infamous for its controversial take against the Islamic faith..."
 * CNN - "The American Freedom Defense Initiative is also known for its anti-Muslim stance, with the Southern Poverty Law Center describing Geller as "the anti-Muslim movement's most visible and flamboyant figurehead," a description that she disputes."
 * Boston Globe - After the MBTA ran pro-Palestinian ads in 2013, a pro-Israel group called the American Freedom Defense Initiative sought to run its own advertisements... The American Freedom Defense Initiative, which has been designated as anti-Islam by the Southern Poverty Law Center,..."
 * Washington Post - "...but rather a pro-Israel organization... The Southern Poverty Law Center considers AFDI an “anti-Muslim” hate group."

From this, I think it's best to call the group pro-Israel, anti-Muslim/Islam and ascribe the "hate group" label to SPLC in the lead sentence. The sources seem to take this approach when describing the group, especially those published after the designation by the SPLC. Propose changing the lead as follows:

This seems like a balanced description to me. Let me know what you think.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 21:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Any opinions? It's been a few days. Wouldn't be opposed to changing "Islamophobic advertising campaigns" to "anti-Muslim advertising campaigns" to fit with the lead sentence.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 23:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no objection. I appreciate your thorough review! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging since they are the other user involved with the lead dispute. Any thoughts?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 23:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * If reliable sources accommodate it, I would prefer that "anti-Islamic" be used in place of both "Islamophobic" and "anti-Muslim". "Islamophobic" is one of those new, we-can't-resist-saying-it, three-dollar words as if we were talking about a psychiatric condition (people whose views we dislike are NUTS!) and anti-Muslim has a racist flavor to it rather than a strong dislike for the religion and, especially, its radical adherents flavor to it. I think the latter is more accurate. Motsebboh (talk) 00:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This is an improvement and better reflects the sources. I, also, would prefer "anti-Islamic" as it is broader. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sources are pretty uniform in calling the the group anti-Muslim. I think we should reflect that. As for the ads, anti-Islam is fine by me if it generates consensus.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 01:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "Islamophobic" is an overused buzzword and "Islamic" everything isn't? Really? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The racism in SIOA is discussed by many sources. We should continue to use "Islamophobic" for that reason, as "anti-Islam" could be based on neutrally assessed criteria. The SIOA is not neutral on this point. Binksternet (talk) 02:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Where is it that "racism" in the SIOA -- presumably a hatred of Semites and other peoples from regions of the world where Islam has historically predominated -- reflected in the facts presented in our article? As for "Islamophobic" versus "anti-Islamic", the latter is preferable because it doesn't presume those who oppose Islam, and particularly radical Islam, are nuts. Motsebboh (talk) 03:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The current sources attached to Islamophobic use the term Islamophobic. The term does not a psychological phobia (which you know) and that alone is not grounds to object to its use. We need to use what the sources use, even if we don't like the terms themselves (NPOV and all).  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 04:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Some "reliable sources" use that term, some don't, and some, I suppose, use a variety of the terms that we are debating. We are free to use the reliably sourced terms that we feel are best. Of course terms ending in "phobia" and "phobic" are meant to suggest that something is wrong with the people to whom they are applied. That is why they are polemically popular. Motsebboh (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of using the term "Islamphobic" since, at least according to our Islamophobia article, it's the dominant term used to describe both anti-Mulim and anti-Islamic sentiment. Despite legitimate criticism, it has been in use since 1923 and is hardly "one of those new, we-can't-resist-saying-it, three-dollar words." Avoiding the word "Islamophobic" strikes me as equivalent to avoiding the word "homophobic." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The last time I checked there weren't scads of gay extremist cells slaughtering people in the name of homosexuality. Motsebboh (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Still not a justification for not using the term. I'll look into more sources.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 23:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * So we're not even pretending now that this is about policy or usage rather than about your personal feelings, Motsebboh? Good to know, the rest of us can carry on. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "The rest of us can carry on"? Doing what? Making occasional snarky comments? Motsebboh (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Pinging (I think that's everyone)
 * Description of ads

Using Google Scholar (google news doesn't give as much description of the ads themselves, just the group and Geller) searching for "american freedom defense initiative" ads, this is what I found:
 * ANUE.org - "At the time, San Francisco District Attorney George Gascon told the Associated Press, "these offensive ads serve no purpose than to denigrate our city's Arab and Muslim communities."" citing HuffPo.
 * Delmont 2013 - "...subway stations in  New  York  displayed  advertisements  from  the  anti-Islamic American Freedom Defense Initiative"
 * Bazian 2015 - "In spring 2012 the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), an organization established by Pamela Geller, a leading figure in the Islamophobic global network,5 produced a series of national advertisements for buses, train stations, and billboards with the accompanying message..."
 * Abdelkader 2013 - "From San Francisco to Washington, D.C. to Detroit to Chicago to New York, anti-Muslim hate placards have recently appeared on government-owned transit systems in cities around the country. Anti-Muslim hate groups designed..."
 * Lean - Generally refers to the groups and ads as Islamophobic in the title and body of the essay.
 * THE 5TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ISLAM, CIVILIZATION, AND SCIENCE: ISLAM AS A BASIS FOR CIVILIZATIONAL THOUGHT AND DEVELOPMENT- Refers to the ads as an example of Islamophobia on p.76 of the pdf

Searching the same on Google Books (direct pages to quotes linked when possible), I get the following:
 * Deviant Behavior (textbook) by Goode - Refers to the ads under the section on Islamophobia and says that, "When charged with Islamophobia, its supports claim, "It's not Islamophobia. It's Islamorealism."
 * The Law of Journalism and Mass Communication (textbook) Trager et al. - Refers to ads under example of Offensive Advertising and discusses the court decisions.
 * Global Issues: Selections from CQ Researcher - Refers to the ads as anti-Muslim
 * Scapegoating Islam: Intolerance, Security, and the American Muslim: Intolerance, Security, and the American Muslim (academic publisher) - Refers to the ads under a section title "Post 9/11 Anti-Muslim Networks".
 * The Oxford Handbook of American Islam (Oxford University Press) - Refers to the ads as "hateful". Main page is not visible for preview though.
 * American Hysteria: The Untold Story of Mass Political Extremism in the United States - Refers to the ads as controversial and provacative. Again, quotes Geller's "not islamophobic, islamorealist".
 * Understanding World Religions: A Road Map for Justice and Peace - Refers to the ads as Islamophobic

I tried not to be too picky or only look for look for books that upheld a certain view (which is why I gave you my search terms). I checked the publishers of books to make sure they weren't self-published. I think "Islamophobic" is pretty well supported by the the sources (especially the secondary textbook sources). Some call them anti-Muslim, and one calls them anti-Ismalic but these are rather synonymous with the current meaning of Islamophobia. The other sources just refer to the ads as hateful/controversial/etc. Given this, as well as the often quoted statement by Geller about Islambophobia/Islamorealism, it think it's safe to say that sources call the ads Islamophobic and that Geller has directly responded to this criticism. How about the following (same text, but more sources supporting description of ads):

I think this version is NPOV and accurately describes how sources discuss the ads, even if not everyone agrees with the terms being used. We must be faithful to the sources and give due weight. In this case, I think that means using "Islamophobic".  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 00:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I see the "Islamophobic" description is assigned to the ads rather than the group. If that's what gets everybody on board with this intro, then I'm okay with it. Of course, there is more hateful vitriol than just the ads... Binksternet (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that's a fair assessment. The group gets called pro-Israel and anti-Muslim mostly. The ads are called Islamophobic (or referred to as examples of Islamophobia).  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 00:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hearing no objection. Will implement changes.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 23:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Islamophobia
Stretching "Islamophobia" to include all concern or reasoned distrust of the supremacist elements of Islam is a polemic tactic. We can correct such a misuse if we value language over polemic. Standard construction in English would have a phobia be an irrational fear. Any dictionary will confirm that. Interestingly, Nathan lean, quoted in an article at the Atlantic, seems to support its use, although he sums up the criticism of that use very correctly: "Nathan Lean, author of The Islamophobia Industry, told me. “Critics of the term often lambast it on the basis of an etymological deficiency, insisting that it thwarts the possibility of critiquing Islam as a religion while simultaneously suggesting the presence of a mental disorder on the part of those who do." *. I suggest avoiding the too-common use of the word "Islamophobia", to avoid being, intentionally or otherwise, any part of categorizing someone with reasoned discomfort as having an irrational fear. Only stop for a moment and consider why someone who promotes what another finds troubling might prefer to label that concern as a phobia. It is a tactic right out of the Ministry of Truth. Shall we be Winston Smith or Big Brother? (Hopefully neither, of course!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crwannall (talk • contribs) 09:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Like "homophobia," the term is widely accepted and used, even if it has its critics. We don't avoid a term simply because some people find it troubling or uncomfortable. Wikipedia is not censored. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * See Etymological fallacy. Lots of terms have different meanings than their components imply.  We now know for example that the West Indies are not off the coast of India but we call them that anyway.  If you don't like how mainstream sources characterize SIOA, that's fine, but it's not an argument for this discussion page.  TFD (talk) 21:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * ❌ The article talk page isn't the place to have a general discussion about the use of certain terms. Your proposal to curtail the use of uncontroversial terms used in reliable sources can be laughed out of the room at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch


 * The article does not say that the term should be stretched to include all concern or reasoned distrust of the supremacist elements of Islam. It only includes irrational concern and unreasoned distrust.  It is not Islamophobia to criticize al Qaeda or ISIS.  TFD (talk) 10:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Anti-Islamization
What about labelling the SIOA as "Anti-Islamization"? I vowed not to ever get involved in certain political Wikipedia articles, but reading this article, I just thought I'd pitch the idea. There are many parties out there that do support the SIOA, but would they ever be accepted as sources here? Food for thought... Israell (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Sunando Sen
I've removed a line about the murder of Sunando Sen as the source does not attribute the sentiments which motivated his murderer to the actions of SIOA in particular; noting that she murdered him "shortly after the ad campaign began" is synthesis (original research) without reliable sources drawing the connection. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)