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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this 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. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

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: Speedy Keep, 13 August 2006, see discussion. Keep, 1 April 2006, see discussion. Keep, 17 Jun 2005, see discussion.

This   level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Islam: Islam and Controversy Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Islam and Controversy task force. Religion: Interfaith Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. Discrimination Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Sources for this article can be found at Talk:Islamophobia/Sources.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Sam Harris (author)#Islam and Muslims|Sam Harris]] The anchor (#Islam and Muslims) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

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).

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

@ 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, "

The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. ( Learn how and when to remove this template message)

: 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) reply

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) reply

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

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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

"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) reply

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

Looking at it seems pretty clear that Indian related material is part of the article. Doug Weller talk 08:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ 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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

This article is currently 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) reply