Talk:Islamophobia
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Islamophobia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.
|
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Islamophobia. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Islamophobia at the Reference desk. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sources for this article can be found at Talk:Islamophobia/Sources. |
Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - RPM SP 2022 - MASY1-GC 1260 200 Thu[edit]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 February 2022 and 5 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aashima99 (article contribs).
"Irrational and unjustified"[edit]
This claim is based on the second source, that describes Islamophobia as "irrational, unjustified, or excessive". Are we just going to cherrypick the adjectives that we like? We should either mention all three adjectives or not mention them at all. Bakbik1234 (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- The lead summarizes the article. The sections discussing prejudice and racism indicate irrational and unjustified. I don't see anything that talks to excessive. Excessive suggests there is a reason for prejudice. Personally I prefer the three dictionary definitions given as cites in the lead. But then, we don't usually have cites in the lead and just summarize the body. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- The word "irrational" should clearly be removed so that Wikipedia can remain objective. It is not featured in Oxford dictionary which is the standard of the web. Dingus1233 (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Objective3000 Babik was at the time of the post topic banned from this page and although they could have made an edit request that's not one. They were then blocked indefinitely. It's rare that i would accept a dictionary as a source for meaning as they are often incomplete or, where one described archaeology as the study of the past, just wrong. Both the first and second sources back "irrational". I'd like to change the second citation to cite the original source.
- Also, as the lead is a summary of the main points in the article, and we also have a section "Irrational fear". So there is plenty of sourced material in the article to back using the word. What I suggest is removing the three dictionary definitions - they add nothing to the article that isn't better sources. That section starts "As opposed to being a psychological or individualistic phobia". Which brings up another point about words - they mean what they mean, and their meaning is not determined by their etymology. Antisemitism is not prejudice against people who speak semitic languages. Dingus is wrong in saying the Oxford dictionary should rule, and of course we don't rely on someone's opinion of what is objective but upon reliably published sources. Doug Weller talk 15:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Irrational sounds good to me. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- You mention the 'irrational fear' section, but we also have an 'origin and causes' section, which, in your view, goes against the usage of the word. Dingus1233 (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing that! Which parts of that section do you think go against an understanding of Islamophobia as irrational? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- If a cause exists, it cannot be unjustified. Also, in the article on xenophobia as a whole, the word 'irrational' is not used, so why should it be used in the case of Islamophobia? Dingus1233 (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- There is always a "cause" for prejudice. That does not mean it is justified or rational. You aren't going to get far with this argument. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- There's at least rough consensus against your position, Dingus1233. You're free to pursue some sort of dispute resolution, if you wish, but restoring your changes against consensus is disruptive. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- If a cause exists, it cannot be unjustified. Also, in the article on xenophobia as a whole, the word 'irrational' is not used, so why should it be used in the case of Islamophobia? Dingus1233 (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing that! Which parts of that section do you think go against an understanding of Islamophobia as irrational? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Article is currently Western-centric and heavily prejudiced against Muslims[edit]
Currently, this article is Western-centric and gives undue weight to the sentiments of right-wing political commentators in Western Europe and America.
The bigoted opinions of some irrelevant anti-Muslim political commentators in Western Europe and USA are given undue weight in the current version of this page. Rather than explaining how Muslims suffer heavily from anti-Muslim bigotry and American imperialist policies across the world, the current version of this overtly biased article primarily focuses on how some far-right bigots in USA and Western Europe are offended by the term "Islamophobia".
I have added some templates to this page. The extreme anti-Muslim prejudice displayed in the current version of this biased article is an example of the structural Anglo-American centric systemic bias in wikipedia. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- So in order to combat "structural Anglo-American centric systemic bias" you want us to rewrite the page to focus on the United States? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Strawman question. Dont deflect.
- "English Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to NPOV?
Yes, it is, especially when dealing with articles that require an international perspective." - WP:NPOVFAQ Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't disagree on the structural issues (Anglo-American bias is practically our original sin), I question whether your remedies to those issues are appropriate. I would suggest instead of making it more about the US we maybe expand the focus to Central, South, and Southeast Asia. The fact that we don't have a section for India isn't great. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's BackI don't think an NPOV template is warranted given only one person is arguing for it. Unless you think it is. @Shadowwarrior8 There is a more appropriate one, "
: may not represent a worldwide view of the subject" which is what you seem to want. Doug Weller talk 16:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.- I would support the replacement of NPOV with Globalize, this article has gotten over-weighted with North American and European content but I don't think that there are significant NPOV issues beyond that. So in relation to the original complaints... Yes to "Article is currently Western-centric" and no to "heavily prejudiced against Muslims" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Both templates can be inserted simultaneously. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- I see no need for the article wide NPOV tag. The reason I removed the word "excessive" in the lead is that I thought it was not neutral. I'm not seeing a general problem. The globalize tag would be fine. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- I also don't think the criticism tag is needed. This isn't an article about a person or organization who may face criticism. In this case I think it better to have a section on the academic debate and commentary as sprinkling it throughout the body would likely confuse. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- The scope of the topic is undoubtedly broader than the information given in the current version of the article.
- However, it is clear that the hysterical propaganda spread by Anglo-American military and political elites is one of the major instigators of Islamophobia across the world since the 1990s. There is no mention of this in the article. The current version of the article gives undue weight to American right-wing bigots who promulgate American war-propaganda and attempt to deny the existence of Islamophobia. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- But aren't
Anglo-American military and political elites
spreadinghysterical propaganda
typicallyAmerican right-wing bigots
? In which case this is due weight. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC) - "hysterical propaganda spread by Anglo-American military and political elites" The press has done an excellent job at spreading panic over the existential threat posed by Muslims, and the film and television industry has been dehumanising "foreigners" through its own propaganda. What makes you think that the military is calling the shots? Dimadick (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- But aren't
- @Horse Eye's BackI don't think an NPOV template is warranted given only one person is arguing for it. Unless you think it is. @Shadowwarrior8 There is a more appropriate one, "
- I don't disagree on the structural issues (Anglo-American bias is practically our original sin), I question whether your remedies to those issues are appropriate. I would suggest instead of making it more about the US we maybe expand the focus to Central, South, and Southeast Asia. The fact that we don't have a section for India isn't great. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- I do think that we currently devote perhaps a bit too much space to people saying "is this really a thing tho" or the like. It's useful to compare this article to Antisemitism (an article on a very similar term, which has similarly attracted controversy from people who feel that it has recently been, in some contexts, misused, but which has only brief mentions of that dispute and covers it in much more sedate manner.) In particular I would suggest trimming or rewording the second paragraph of the lead, especially the sentence starting with
For some critics...
; theDebate on the term and its limitations
section (especially some of the excessive quotes); theProposed alternatives
section; theIdentity politics
section, and theCommentary
section, all of which put undue weight on the opinion of just a few scholars or commentators. We should step back and rely more on secondary sources, rather than a smattering of random opinions with no clear rationale for why they were selected. --Aquillion (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)- I think the second paragraph is quite absurd and totally inappropriate. I'm removing it from the lede. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- I personally don't think the antisemitism article is very good, but both of them definitely need an overhaul with scholarly sources, the overuse of news, op-eds, and think tanks is readily apparent from the references. (t · c) buidhe 04:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Does anyone disagree that at least some of this article is covered by Discretionary sanctions?[edit]
Looking at it seems pretty clear that Indian related material is part of the article. Doug Weller talk 08:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: 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)
Wiki Education assignment: Race, Law, and Politics[edit]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): 21hroush (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Lindabyamungl (talk) 03:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2024[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Movies
Hollywood is one of the most prominent promoters of Islamophobia and spreading the fear of Muslims throughout the western world, especially in terms of how Middle Eastern people are portrayed on screen. A post 9/11 United States in particular has seen a sharp increase in widespread Islamophobia in depictions of Muslims in film.[1] According to the documentary film, Reel Bad Arabs, Arabs and Muslims are the most vilified and defamed people in western films.[2] Action films and superhero movies such as Ironman(2008) and Taken(2008), in which the villains are unwaveringly violent Muslim men, instilling a disproportionate fear of Muslim men in western audiences.[3] Or films like Argo(2012) or Not Without My Daughter(1991), which although are based on true stories, portray a dehumanization of and lack of feeling in the Muslim characters.[4] Films such as these influence the way audiences perceive Muslims and characterize the larger Muslim community as oppressive towards inherently violent, especially against westerners.
Islamophobia in the media is not however isolated to the West, as it is also seen similarly in how Muslims are commonly portrayed in Hindi cinema, especially with the rise of Hindu nationalism in India.[5] Recent movies such as The Kerala Story(2023) which perpetuates the narrative of love jihad, or Pathaan(2023), pushing a negative conception of Muslims being violent and a need for them to adhere to the values and norms of a Hindu society.[6] These films play a part in a larger agenda of anti-Muslim rhetoric being spread by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his more extreme followers.[7] BUWLL25 (talk) 00:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 09:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
9/11[edit]
During the 9/11 attacks, Islamophobia brought a great deal of attacks onto Muslims. 21hroush (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- ^ https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/openps-2021-0007/html
- ^ https://www.jstor.org/stable/1049860
- ^ https://www.thecairoreview.com/essays/hollywoods-bad-arabs/#:~:text=Arab%2C%20Afghan%2C%20and%20Pakistani%20Muslim,Joe%3A%20Retaliation%20(2013)
- ^ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/15/winner-islamophobia-argo-homeland,https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1369801X.2017.1391710
- ^ https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/india-shah-rukh-khan-pathaan-hindutva-strengthen-how
- ^ https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/india-shah-rukh-khan-pathaan-hindutva-strengthen-how,https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/23/india/indian-film-kerala-story-controversy-intl-hnk/index.html
- ^ https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/india-shah-rukh-khan-pathaan-hindutva-strengthen-how
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- C-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in Society and social sciences
- C-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Society and social sciences
- C-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences
- C-Class Islam-related articles
- Mid-importance Islam-related articles
- WikiProject Islam articles
- C-Class Religion articles
- Mid-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- C-Class Discrimination articles
- Mid-importance Discrimination articles
- WikiProject Discrimination articles