DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

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).

Changes to the Criticism of the term section

[edit]

I've restructured this section to make it more coherent. I've only used the existing material, not added anything, so I hope that doesn't upset anyone. In the interests of balance, however, I'd like to make further changes; in particular, I'd like to change the section title to Criticism of the term and its application. The current section title provides little scope for balance as it implies there is no criticism that goes beyond linguistics - and clearly that's inaccurate. Obscurasky (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the title Criticism of the term and its application, but I think it might even be better to have this title Criticism of the term and claims of its weaponization EntropyReducingGuy(We can talk, but I reply with intended delay)💧♾️➡❄️📚 09:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Obscurasky It seems that by mistake you removed the Kemi Badenoch quote. I'll put it back in the Free speech and legal concerns subsection. EntropyReducingGuy(We can talk, but I reply with intended delay)💧♾️➡❄️📚 09:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're right - apologies. I started work on it yesterday and think I was using an earlier version. I've just re-checked it and that is the only omission. Please add it.
I don't think it's a WP:AGF violation to say that some editors here are a little sensitive about changes to the page. Personally, I'm keen to add the Hitchens quote too, but my motivation for now is simply to create a more solid foundation, off which we can all work to improve this section. Obscurasky (talk) 10:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we are sensitive about attempts to add UNDUE quotes and it is an AGF violation to suggest otherwise. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
O3000, Ret., what are your thoughts on changing the section title - do you agree that the current title incorrectly implies that there is no criticism that goes beyond linguistics?Obscurasky (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am more concerned with the cites. We have articles on Anti-Catholicism and Criticism of the Catholic Church. Possibly the most famous anti-Catholic essay was written by Hitchens.[1] Yet he is not mentioned in either article. Probably because his essays, as articulate and detailed as they are, come across as rants. Or simply that he is against all religions and therefore his statements about any specific religion are not DUE.
You will find racist apologists who rationalize racism by saying it is reasonable to want certain peoples banned from their neighborhoods. You will find anti-Semitic apologists who rationalize their distrust of Jews. You will find Islamophobia apologists who rationalize fear of Muslims. For example talking about the preachings of some Islamic clerics while ignoring others. You will find those who play on Islamophobia feelings by banning mosques in their neighborhood, calling for the ban of travel from Muslim countries, or claiming Muslim members of legislative bodies are spreading Sharia. Such people may claim there is no such thing as racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia – that they are fake terms for rational beliefs, and somehow attacks on freedom of speech.
I fear we may be including apologists in efforts to find additional criticisms for the term. As another such example, I don’t see why it is DUE to include the thoughts of the leader of the Conservative Party in the UK which may simply be pandering. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Objective3000 I have quite a bit to say on this, but first I want to make sure I understand you correctly. Are you suggesting that we should not include any section on criticism of the term Islamophobia because all such criticism could be seen as apologetics for racism? Are you asserting that there is no legitimate criticism of the term or its usage? And if that’s not your position, how do you propose distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate criticism of the term and its applications? EntropyReducingGuy(We can talk, but I reply with intended delay)💧♾️➡❄️📚 16:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have entire articles on Weaponization of antisemitism and Race card. They exist because there is a great deal of misuse of the terms anti-Semitism and race card, albeit in very different manners. I have not seen anything resembling this related to the term Islamophobia. Now, any term can be misused and we can talk to that. But I think the section is too long and includes material that doesn't quite apply. For example, Apostasy and Blasphemy Codes are in fact free speech concerns. But what do they have to do with criticism of the term Islamophobia? The entire section on Free speech and legal concerns is folks who want to limit free speech because allowing it might limit free speech. That is, the term "Islamophobia" is an invention and should not be used because someone might misuse it. We don't have a section in the Racism article saying that the term Racism is an invention because the term somehow limits speech. Basically, I am saying what Saman Sayyid said about etymological fundamentalism. I think we have a problem following the Conceptual ambiguity section with a section that falls for that ambiguity. Of course I've previously pointed out two quotes that I think lack WP:WEIGHT. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, many of the critics of the term Islamophobia claim that there is also a great deal of misuse of the term Islamophobia. And I agree with them. I actually think there is enough material on this subject for an entire article on Weaponization of the term Islamophobia. I will hasten to add, to preempt any accusations of "racism" against myself, that I also believe there is also a great deal of real Islamophobia. But nevertheless there is also a lot of weaponization of this term to silence legitimate criticism against Islam as a religion and against some Muslims who hold illiberal values and practices.
  • I think that you misunderstand the "free speech" argument. To the best of my knowledge, none of the critics of the term Islamophobia suggests that using the term Islamophobia should be illegal. Whereas "on the other side" there are people who wish to make certain forms of expression, which they deem to be Islamophobic, illegal. For example some people suggest that burning the Quran or drawing Muhammad should be illegal because they consider these acts to be Islamophobic. So your claim that "the entire section on Free speech and legal concerns is folks who want to limit free speech because allowing it might limit free speech" is completely and utterly wrong.
  • Finally, I still don’t see why you oppose including the quotes by Badenoch and the French PM. On what basis do you consider them to lack WEIGHT? Are you suggesting these individuals are not notable enough, or that they are racists? (I’ll leave aside Hitchens for now, since we discuss him in depth in another section here)
EntropyReducingGuy(We can talk, but I reply with intended delay)💧♾️➡❄️📚 18:10, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And the U.S. President is signing an executive order to punish those who burn American flags. And there have been attempts by Congress to amend the US Constitution to make Christianity the official religion in 1874, 1895, 1896, 1910, 1947, 1949, 1951, 1953, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1959, 1961, 1963, 1965, 1967, and 1969. And attempts to put the Ten Commandments in every classroom in some states. In my public school junior high, you were forced in pray each day or leave the class if you were Jewish. In grade school, forced to take Bible class. There are bigots of all brands all around us. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So? How does that contradict anything I said here? You can write about those bigotries in their relevant articles. How is this relevant to the discussion here? EntropyReducingGuy(We can talk, but I reply with intended delay)💧♾️➡❄️📚 19:37, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of any country where burning the Quran is illegal where the term Islamophobia is commonly used. It is considered desecration, not Islamophobia. I do not see why the thoughts of the leader of the Conservative Party in the UK have any WP:WEIGHT in this article. I think too many random people have been placed in this section merely because they came up in a Google search. I do not see why Hitchens should be included for reasons stated multiple times. Since you do not understand my concerns, I'm done trying to explain them to you. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You’ve chosen to step back from this discussion, but I’ll address your points for the benefit of other editors.
  • In some countries, individuals have been prosecuted—and in certain cases even convicted—of Islamophobia for burning the Quran. Examples include Sweden (Guardian, Nov 2024; Guardian, Feb 2025) and the UK (The Times; Freethinker, June 2025).
  • The opinion of the leader of the Conservative Party in the UK has weight because she is the head of the second largest political party in the UK parliament and the leader of the opposition there. This is even more true with regard to the opinion of the former French prime minister.
EntropyReducingGuy(I talk, but can reply slowly)💧♾️➡❄️📚 14:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He was charged with incitement against an ethnic group. That could apply to any ethnic group and is not a law specifically against burning the Quran. It would also apply to burning the Torah or hanging a noose. And I still see no rationale behind including a opinion of the leader of the Conservative Party in the UK or any other party. Of all the sources we can find, politicians are likely among the worst. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article should say something like "People defending people accused of Islamophobia have complained that...." While criticism should be included, the article must assign the proper weight to various opinions. It should not falsely imply that these criticisms have any acceptance in reliable sources, which is what the reference to Hitchens did.
BTW, "phobia" in this case is a backform of hydrophobia. The implication is that Islam drives them mad, not that they are afraid of it. TFD (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But some of the criticism of the term Islamophobia and of the way it is used does have acceptance in reliable sources. EntropyReducingGuy(We can talk, but I reply with intended delay)💧♾️➡❄️📚 18:16, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where? TFD (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are talking about Hitchens, then his opinion pieces criticizing the term Islamophobia appeared in RS, such as Vanity Fair [1] and Slate [2][3]. See also an opinion piece defending Hitchens in this context in The Nation [4]. So WP:RSOPINION applies here. PS what is the source for your theory about the etymology of Islamophobia? EntropyReducingGuy(I talk, but can reply slowly)💧♾️➡❄️📚 13:24, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Women in Politics

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2025 and 8 December 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Enzo1206 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Enzo1206 (talk) 15:34, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article should mention the Islamophobia that's held by Muslim refugees who are afraid to live in Muslim-majority countries

[edit]

Every day, the news is full of articles about Muslim refugees who are afraid to live in Muslim majority countries. This is a huge, very common, and very well documented example of Islamophobia. It should be mentioned in the article.

Stakeout on Blue Mist Mountain (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be easy for you to provide some reliable sources to support this. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that the news is full of such articles, but isn't it basically true that there is much more immigration from Muslim majority countries to the West, than vice versa? EntropyReducingGuy(I talk, but can reply slowly)💧♾️➡❄️📚 12:01, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it's true, and if it is, I don't know why or if it is related to this article. Still requires WP:RS O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:20, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that if there are reliable sources that show that there is much more immigration from Muslim majority countries to the West than vice versa, then it would not be Islamophobic to mention that fact about immigration, since it would be the factual truth, and therefore it wouldn't be related to the article and shouldn't be mentioned in it. Likewise if there are reliable sources that show that many Muslim refugees are afraid to live in Muslim majority countries, then it would not be Islamophobic to mention that fact about the refugees, since it would be the factual truth, and therefore it wouldn't be related to the article and shouldn't be mentioned in it. EntropyReducingGuy(I talk, but can reply slowly)💧♾️➡❄️📚 08:33, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Islamfeindlichkeit" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Islamfeindlichkeit has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 25 § Islamfeindlichkeit until a consensus is reached. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:50, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Racisme anti-arabe" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Racisme anti-arabe has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 25 § Racisme anti-arabe until a consensus is reached. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:51, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Racisme anti-maghrébin" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Racisme anti-maghrébin has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 25 § Racisme anti-maghrébin until a consensus is reached. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:52, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Islamophobie" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Islamophobie has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 25 § Islamophobie until a consensus is reached. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:52, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dicussion: There should be an article about "anti-Muslim hatred"

[edit]

The term "Islamophobia" is something that first became widespread across Europe and Anglosphere during 1990s in the context of the post-Cold War era. It primarily became associated with a hysterical form of anti-Muslim bigotry that is cloaked under the smokescreen of some vague U.S.-led neo-liberalist orthodoxy. This new form of anti-Muslim bigotry attempts to mask the medeival bigotry of far-right forces (like the Christian right, white nationalists, fascists, hindutva, neo-nazis, etc.) from the public consciousness.

This entire page gives undue weight to the views of certain contemporary arm-chair Western intellectuals and how they choose to feel about Muslims and the term "Islamophobia".

There should be an article that addresses the hatred experienced by Muslims throughout history before the end of the Cold War. Even today, genocides against Muslims such as the Rohingya genocide are more driven by the ideological forces that habour pre-modern anti-Muslim hatred. "Islamophobia" is adopted by right-wing forces based in the Anglosphere that attempts to portray a permanent enemy in front of their fractured support base, censure dissidents, gain the tactical support of some of the most extremely bigoted ideological factions, and push war-hawks into the U.S. military apparatus.

I propose to move the title of this page to "Anti-Muslim sentiment" and transfer contents that are specifically about "Islamophobia" to another page. shadowwarrior8 (talk) 09:22, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t oppose renaming the article to Anti-Muslim sentiment - there are valid reasons for doing so, some of which are noted in the article itself. However, your argument seems to rest on an incorrect assumption: that the term Islamophobia was created and is used by anti-Muslims to conceal their hostility. In fact, the complete opposite is true - it was coined and is used by supporters of Muslims to highlight the hatred directed toward them. EntropyReducingGuy(I talk, but can reply slowly)💧♾️➡❄️📚 13:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm very much mistaken, the suggestion appears to be for a content split with "Anti-Muslim sentiment" as the parent topic and "Islamophobia" as a child, which might also make sense from the perspective of distinguishing more mundane and generic bigotry from pathological fear or hatred. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Iskandar323 Yes, my proposal is a content split. Rename this page title to "anti-Muslim sentiment" and explain about anti-Muslim hatred in this page. Transfer the contents specifically about Islamophobia to a new page titled "Islamophobia". Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that the phenomenon of Islamophobia (not the term "Islamophobia") is a recent post-Cold War emergence. It doesn't take into account the other forms of anti-Muslim hatred that have existed since the 7th century C.E. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source that puts this together as a distinct topic? TFD (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shadowwarrior, I don't think there is a basis for distinguishing between anti-Muslim hatred before the 1990s and since then. Can you point to any significant qualitative difference between them? EntropyReducingGuy(I talk, but can reply slowly)💧♾️➡❄️📚 11:51, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You would have to find sources that these are two distinct topics and that there is a body of literature about "Anti-Muslim sentiment" separate from Islamophobia.
It is not clear that persecution of the Rohingya is based on religion rather than ethnicity, especially in Muslim countries. However, according to an article in Global Mental Health (Camb.), "global events over the past two decades have fostered discrimination along religious lines, more specifically an air of anti-Muslim racism or Islamophobia.[2] TFD (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently opposed to this proposal. Today, the two terms are used synonymously or else different authors argue over which is the better term. I don't think I've ever seen a source saying that one is a subset of the other or that they are qualitatively different things. Unless you can show not only that there are sources which say that, but that the preponderance of the sources do, I think it's best to keep the two terms to one article.
There is, however, a valid conversation as to which of the terms is the best title. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:59, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2025

[edit]
~2025-41633-36 (talk) 05:13, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The report actually says, "Some policymakers and monitors prefer the label “anti-Muslim hatred”....For the purposes of the present report, the Special Rapporteur uses the term “Islamophobia”.[3] Note "some" not "many" and the authors' use the term "Islamophobia.
Note also that the report says, "It would often be incorrect to address discrimination, hostility and violence that emanate from Islamophobia as based on the single protected ground of religion alone." "[It] unpacks the concept of Islamophobia/anti-Muslim hatred, including the processes of essentialization and racialization that propel this form of bias."
When you read about what a report says, especially when it's on a blog or opinion piece, it's helpful to read what the report says and see if it has been accurately reported. TFD (talk) 01:23, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The UN Warning: Protecting People vs. Protecting Ideas The most powerful evidence against using "Islamophobia" as a conversation-stopper comes from the United Nations. In official report A/HRC/46/30, UN experts acknowledge that many policymakers prefer the term "anti-Muslim hatred" specifically because they fear the word "Islamophobia" is used to "stifle freedom of expression" and "condemn all critiques of Islam." The UN makes a vital distinction that is often ignored by big tech algorithms: International human rights law protects individuals (the people), not religions (the ideas). When a label is used to stop someone from questioning a "biting" verse or an instruction of dominance, it is protecting an ideology at the expense of human inquiry. I want the whole thing removed because it keeps on emphasising it’s about race that word is just simply there to shut down people and a referenced that you win as well.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:23, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]