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 Jonny Quick (talk | contribs) at 00:45, 17 August 2015 (→‎Contradictory Lede). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Proposed merge with Islamophobia in the media

Unwarranted WP:SPLIT with a very limited point of view and WP:RECENTISM. For balance, comprehensive secondary/tertiary sources should be used rather than isolated articles and opinion pieces. --Animalparty-- (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Merging a page on anti-Muslim xenophobia into a small redirect would not do justice to the importance of this subject. Islamophobia in the media is arguably responsible for much of our military interventionism in the middle east over the past few decades. The amount of media coverage this issue has received would mean that merging would amount to saying "xenophobia in newspapers is unimportant" or "lets obscure the fact that these broadcasters demonize Muslims". 89.242.90.7 (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Laws of Ishmael--and what has become of them?

I recall reading in a religious text on how and when Hagar and Ishmael were traveling in the path of banishment from the presence of Abraham and Sarah that Ishmael was nearly sexually accosted by some people that they came to meet; the people even offered to purchase Ishmael into sex slavery. This would be a very world changing occurrence/experience in anyone's life. What ever happened to the "Laws of Ishmael," and why do not the Muslims quote nor revere them? I am a bit Islamaphobic that they do not. Gnostics (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory Lede

1st sentence, paragraph 1 says: Islamophobia (or anti-Muslim sentiment) is a term for prejudice against, hatred towards, or fear of the religion of Islam or Muslims.

Well, which is it. Prejudice, hatred towards and fear of Muslims or Islam. That's 5 different variables. Three different qualities on the part of the person to which it is supposed has the quality of "Islamophobia" and two different objects of those qualities. Muslims are not "Islam" and Islam is not Muslims. The common response by Muslims in the aftermath of a terrorist attack is that the perpetrators of that attack were either not "true" Muslims, or the religion that they work acting in accordance with is not "true" Islam. The Muslims have great difficulty even defining what true and false Islam is and is not, and quite a few of them get killed as a result of that dispute, and yet this phrase glosses over all of that internal dispute and hands us a neatly packaged phrase that has so many different permutations that it is rendered meaningless. Beyond that, the pop-psych-ish connotations of the word lend an undeserved and unearned smack of scientific medical endorsement, as if one can go to their qualified medical health care professional and receive the diagnosis of "Islamophobia" similar to how one can be diagnosed as being afraid of spiders, or enclosed spaces. The Lede should start with an apologetic explanation as to how this meaningless and politically inflammatory phrase is being given an article in the Wikipedia, not as a standalone phrase of encyclopedic merit, but as an artificial and mass-media created phrase used to demonize people for having an opinion that is contrary to what is now politically correct, and mandated.

1st sentence, paragraph 2 says: The causes and characteristics of Islamophobia are still debated. Not according to the 1st sentence in the 1st paragraph. That sentence portrays this fake and made-up word as if it has some official, medically-accepted definition (ignoring it's own insubstantive and overbroad definition), it still says clearly that it is what it is. Then in this 2nd paragraph, it says that it's not.

Well which is it? In general terms I support it's inclusion, but it is dishonest to pretend that there is anything resembling medical/mental health care consensus on this word as an actual "phobia", so that disclaimer should be right up front. And then, moving to the sociological definitions (plural), the article should detail their number and how they may or may not be related. To fear something is not necessarily wrong, bad, immoral or bigoted, and this article should differentiate between the "bad" kind of Islamophobia and the "good" and if it cannot then it should at least make the statement that it cannot, as the word in common practice is a pejorative and it's only purpose is to cow the people the word is used on into submission. It's equivalent in it's use and function as the "n-word", and there should be explicit mention in the article that the word is only used by people in the rhetorical or political sense, and has no purpose and does not exist outside of that realm.Jonny Quick (talk) 07:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in the article does it suggest that Islamophobia is a "medical/mental health care" issue. I suggest you read the sources cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobia

A phobia is a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational. In the event the phobia cannot be avoided entirely, the sufferer will endure the situation or object with marked distress and significant interference in social or occupational activities.[1]

I assume your position is that Wikipedia is allowed to use language that apply only to medical conditions, but we are to assume they are not applicable as actual medical conditions unless the source explicitly says it's a medical conditions. All language is assumed to be metaphoric, unless concretely stated otherwise? If so, that's ridiculous. If Wikipedia applies your rule to the use of medical terminology to non-medical contexts, then all uses of the word "cancer" are assumed to mean "cancer-like" or "similar to cancer" unless actually explicitly stated to be "cancer" in the medical sense. It's obvious to me that Islamophobia is a made-up, fake and politically rhetorical word, crafted to convey the idea that people that hae "anxiety" about Islam are mentally ill. You know this too, I assume. Do you?Jonny Quick (talk) 00:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, we do not cite Wikipedia as a source, and secondly, if we did, it would surely be evident that the statement at the top of the article you cited was applicable: "This article is about the clinical psychology. For other uses, see Phobia (disambiguation)". As for your opinions concerning what is or isn't 'obvious', they are of no relevance here, since Wikipedia policy is that articles are based on published reliable sources. And furthermore, this talk page is not a forum for debate - unless you are proposing specific changes to the article, compliant with Wikipedia policy, I can see no point in continuing this discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are pretending to not understand the point. I never claimed to want to use Wikipedia as a "source". My point is (obviously) that everyone knows what a "phobia" is, and so do you. You are simply pretending to not know, as a tactical maneuver to avoid addressing the substantive and documented problems with this phrase, and this article. You are taking your ridiculous notion that there's nothing wrong with including the word "phobia" into this made-up, fake and politically crafted word without a disclaimer, this article itself undermines the entire legitimacy of the phrase in the body, while the Lede merely says that it's "criticized", when in fact it should be "criticized" for being completely meaningless. Which doesn't mean that there shouldn't be an article about the meaningless and manipulative phrase intended to demonize as an epithet those that have substantive issues with the religion of Islam, it's just that the encyclopedia should be honest about the dishonest and manipulative nature of the phrase, as well as the editors that pretend to not understand any of the "criticisms" about the phrase as a means of maintaining it's biased and dishonest description in the encyclopedia. Shall I give you an alternative example of what this article is doing with the word "Islamophobe" except to substitute a much easier-to-understand pejorative, such as the "n-word"? The article could assert the legitimacy of the word, water-down all the criticisms of that word, and then go on to tell us all the qualities that make up the people to whom the "n-word" applies, and right here in the encyclopedia. That's the natural results of your understanding of "how things should be", and it's wrong in both cases. And I suspect the reason why you choose to disengage is because you know your position is untenable and you will lose in any serious discussion between more experienced editors.Jonny Quick (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Photo of "American Protester"

Caption claimed the "American Protester" "self-identified" as being Islamophobic. We (the Encyclopedia) can't say that. He could be holding someone else's sign. Or possibly he was mocking the term itself, saying "This stupid and meaningless label you use, well I'M IT. That's not "self-identifying" as having the pseudo-psychological disease, that's mocking and illustrating the ridiculous nature of those entities (SPLA, the left in general, liberals, democrats, etc...) that use the term. You know, those groups on the "Leftist Map".Jonny Quick (talk) 08:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamophobia&oldid=676440085"