Jump to content

Talk:Islamophobia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.69.176.102 (talk) at 20:08, 23 October 2014 (→Racism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Neologism

Wouldn't "Islamaphobia" be correctly classified as a political neologism? Kezzer16 (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been when it was first used, as would every other political term. It is included in "Category:Political neologisms". Why do you ask? TFD (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Simply because it's not anywhere on this article. Kezzer16 (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See archives. [1] Note in particular the long list of usages of the term in this discussion [2] which demonstrates that the word is in everyday usage in sources which don't feel obliged to explain that the word is a neologism. Incidentally,the earliest use of the word in its modern sense that we've been able to locate seems to date back to 1970, [3] suggesting that as neologisms go, it isn't exactly new... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion Andy. But yet you evendo admit it is a neologism. Furthermore isolated usage in 1970 did not achieve notability- The word is an agenda driven contrivance used Almost exclusively by Islamophilic ultraliberals Seeking to throttle all criticism of Islamofascism- English WP not even possible under lobal caliphate you empowerva deletionistic edits, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilishlyhandsome (talk • contribs) 20:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Um, this page is to discuss the article, not the subject - no one is going to listen to comments like that or take you seriously. You've been around a long time, you must know about RS, Verify, etc. Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

get serious

Sorry cursor jumps I needed to resection tonrespond

Doug I am disappointed by your atavck. In past you have been voice of reason.

FYI not dicussing topic discusing biased acceptance of ploy neologism

Just because it is obviously Zi have views is irrelevsnt,

Grumy reverters bias the page obscuring that thisisaPOV neologism as thousands of writers agree . Eg Hitchens.

Andy reverts without talk to present the ideological framng conocted b Runnymede etalasif scientificfact,

Thus millionsdotkemy pointseriously.

Please speak for yourselfthen


In particular I made a series of stepped edits today to allow reversion to at Least one minimally controversial level of modification. Andy the Grump just reverted all three steps without discussions. It is he you should be taking to task for stretching the presumption of WP:GoofFaith

Hence I reestablished the minimal change. Islmophobia is a coinage a portmanteau and neologism which many regard as a piece of orrdnance n ideological warfare. However that widely supported opinion is NOT what this edit conflict is about. At this point I seek only support for establishing that Islamophobia is a term....next step is to clean up the shoddy writing style which is redundant. Also. Whydoes ths man insist ondeleting the chracterization "discrimination"????Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)SignedDevilishlyhandsome no tilde via phone — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilishlyhandsome (talk • contribs) 23:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I viewed your comments about "Islamophilic ultraliberals" as an attack on editors who think this is a useful and meaningful phrase. I'm tempted to revert you because it is unnecessary to tell readers that the word is a word - term means a word or phrase used to describe a thing or to express a concept - but so what? Basically we are telling people that Islamophobia is a word - but I think our readers will all know that. The 'neologism' bit is a red herring and irrelevant (and seems to be being used to diss it). Of course it is pov in a sense - as is the word 'anti-Semite'. So what again? In fact your suggested changes were all redundent. " a term for prejudice discrimination antipathy" is not only poor English it is just adding other words meaning prejudice. "Chilling" is much better expressed in the second paragraph which says "Some commentators charge that the concept of "Islamophobia" has been used to dismiss any criticism of Islam, including its radical variants, by equating it with prejudice and racism."
So how do you justify using 'term'? How does it add to the lead? Dougweller (talk) 08:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Achieving quality NPOV

Doug I appreciate your points. We can discuss each of them. What caused me to questionanother editor was that he racks up a huge edit count by taking five seconds to revert people``s painstaking, often time consuming work over spurious editcoments that have nobearing on the actual edit. Andy, the issue is nt *weasel words* nor is it sorcing.

One. Is it preferable or not that lede not include refs iff summarizing ponts made in text below and referenced?

Two Either way, what business has anyone deleting *discrimination* in a listing of Islphobic characteristics as *unsourced*when it is part of a list of near-synonyms which are themselves unsorced?

Three Islamophobia as a is attaining to legal status in some jursdictions As such it is normal dictin to list closey reated concpts. How is it hereby made a^weasel word^ just because you don't likeit

Four Is it claimed that discrimination v Muslims is not Islamophobia?

Five Why delete that as *unsourced weasel * but leave in the similar explanatory words which are equally unsourced. Six so I expect AGrmp to lay off the qwikand easy revrt button and devote his high experience to BUILDING ok? But yes we can discuss possible redundancy issu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilishlyhandsome (talk • contribs) 23:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's rarely a good idea to clutter up the lead with stuff that is referenced in the article. I don't see a need to use synonyms, if the words aren't actually the same that's another issue and needs to be discussed with specific examples. I'm not clear what you are getting at about weasel words so again need examples. As for four, again, specific examples. It's too difficult to have generalised discussions as that can lead to talking at cross purposes. Dougweller (talk) 09:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should coinages, neologisms and controversial abstractions be identified as a different class of noun

Should coinages, neologisms and controversial abstractions be identified as a different class of noun

This is a substantive issue which goes back to nominalism vs realsm, Platonic Idea and Wittgenstein. While any noun under encyclopedic treatment is trivially a term visitors are entitled to being alerted when a term, though widely accepted in some academic circles is vehemently rejected, challenged or at best disused unused and ignored by a substantial plurality. In other words when it is itself notable as a term good bad or indifferent then the fact that it is a term for a questinable challenged or controversial abstraction which may or may not have a reality of its own, best NPOV practice would be to include that characterisation, that it is a term for X, rather than the bald assertion that it is X. Just as Van Goghs Starry Night is a painting of night sky not an astronomical proof of anything Peace a Love FolsDevilishlyhandsome (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I don't see this as necessary. The lead makes it clear that it is controversial, that's enough. Dougweller (talk) 09:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Racism

User:AndyTheGrump: For the purposes of ensuring that the article "makes it clear that some sources" consider Islamophobia racism, is this opening better?


Islamophobia is a term for prejudice against, hatred towards, or fear of Muslims. While the term is widely recognized and used, both the term and the underlying concept have been criticized.

Some scholars have defined it as a type of racism, but this has been contested. Some commentators charge that the concept of "Islamophobia" has been used to dismiss any criticism of Islam, including its radical variants, by equating it with prejudice and racism.


Reference is made to it's definition as a form of racism once, rather than twice, which reflects the extent to which this view is held. Hayek79 (talk) 11:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It violates "neutrality" by providing parity between mainstream views of Islamophobia and opponents of the concept. While the term Islamophobia can be misused, the wording suggests that it is typically misused. The term racism can also be misused, but that does not make it a meaningless concept. TFD (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even some of the harshest critics of Islam concede that certain forms of an anti-Islamic or a critical-Islamic position may turn into a discrimination of people just for 'appearing Muslim' or being from the middle east (i.e. doesn't automatically mean you are a Muslim.) - for example a man with a long beard and tanned skin, in reality could be an atheist etc. from Cuba but will be looked upon as an Islamic fundamentalist Arabian by appearance alone. As for whether that is racism is up to the debate already raging. Would you present that as well? I'm not sure if that would fix anything to mention the situational factor.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamophobia&oldid=630836777"