User talk:Dbachmann/Germen Axon

• Germen (talk · contribs); Axon (talk · contribs)
• Talk:Islamophobia
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Germen

since this is in my user namespace, I take the right to edit this page at will, especially removing all edits that I consider unconstructive. needless to say, this will include any sort of personal attack. dab (ᛏ) 09:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Fair enough to me. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 09:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree, fair enough to me too. I hope we can find a solution to this dispute that satisfies both parties. I would, however, like to ask the following request:
    • I would ask that both parties (I inlude myself in this) refrain from making bad faith remarks subsequent to this mediation attempt here and on other pages
    • We each make a statement in one section and leave discussion to a seperate section below the statements: I find this a less "tense" way of dealing with a dispute.
  • I hope this is agreeable to all parties. -Axon (talk|contribs) 10:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC) ----
    • Agreed. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 10:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Definition of islamophobia

I think the root cause of problems is the disagreeance between Axon and me about the definition of islamophobia. Axon wants the Runnymede Trust definition of islamophobia to be held as universally valid, while I want the dictionary definition to be used. Axon and other users argue that because the Runnymede Trust definition for islamophobia is supported by "a wide range of international bodies and governments", it is universally valid.

Dictionary definition of islamophobia: Prejudice against Islam and Muslims.

Runnymede Trust Definition of islamophobia:

1. Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.
2. Islam is seen as separate and 'other'. It does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them.
3. Islam is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist.
4. Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism and engaged in a 'clash of civilisations'.
5. Islam is seen as a political ideology and is used for political or military advantage.
6. Criticisms made of the West by Islam are rejected out of hand.
7. Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.
8. Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural or normal.

I and other users argue that the Runnymede Trust Definition has severe logical and factual fallacies and that the Runnymede Trust is not a neutral and impartial source.

Logical fallacies

• point 7 describes the consequences of islamophobia (justification of discriminatory practices), not islamophobia itself and therefore IMHO does not belong in the islamophobia definition.

Factual fallacies

• Islam is unresponsive to change is seen as an islamophobic statement. In fact, mainstream islamic theology calls changes in islam bida'a, loosely translated as unlawful innovation. Bidaa in essential islamic tenets is regarded a a ground for considering a person an apostate. So according to the RD, mainstream islamic theology is islamophobic, which is of course an absurd statement.
• Islam is seen as inferior (barbaric, irrational, primitive, sexist) to the West.
  • "Inferior"-Inferiority is of course subjective. According to the civilizational standards of each civilization, other civilizations usually lack in certain respects and hence are considered inferior. This rather shoudl be classified under chauvinism.
  • "Irrational"-Rational reasoning is an un alienable part of islamic theology as long as the sources of Islam are not questioned. Unquestionable belief (iman) in those sources is represented as both a favour from Allah and a measure of islamic virtue. Some Islamic theologicians reject established scientific facts because of theological reasons.
  • "Primitive":- subjective. If the level of technological progress, organisational level or economic structure are referred to, the statement is true. As per traditions, islam encourages the collection of knowledge, but religious knowledge is considered more valuable than secular scientific knowledge. Unclear is whether the reference it to Islam as a religion or Islam as a culture.
  • "Sexist"-Shari'ah and islamic ethics treat men and women differently, e.g. men can have up to four wifes and an unlimited number of sex slaves, while women cannot, men are the guardians over women, men get double inheritance, the testimony of men counts heavier than that of women, etc, which is consistent with the definition of sexism.
• "Islam as a violent, agressive, threatening, terrorism promoting and clashing civilization" - Not clear. Islamist terrorists and activists cite reputable Islamic sources for their action. Newspapers in predominantly Muslim countries, as well as individual Muslims themselves, see the Muslim world as being threatened by non-Muslims and take a hostile position on e.g. Jews("Zionists"), Christians("Crusaders") and Hindus/Buddhists ("idolators"). Other Muslim sources emphasize tolerance for other beliefs/cultures. A substantial majority of Muslim population subscribes to this POV, which makes the majority of Muslims islamophobic according to the definition, which is an absurd result. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 10:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

(to be expanded)

My suggestion

• Using the dictionary definition as a starting point.
• Elaborate prejudices about Islam and Muslims
• Distinguish which prejudices are true prejudices (for which there are not objective source corroborating them) and which are not.
• Maintain those real prejudices in the introduction, move other supposed islamophobic prejudices in the "disputed" section.
• Maintain a separate section for the Runnymede Trust Definition, which is worth mentioning, albeit not universally valid.

--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 09:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Axon's statement of the content dispute

I would like to make the following statement on how I view the dispute and my position on the topic. As Germen states above, the dispute centers on the definition of Islamophobia. From this I hope we can agree a resolution to this dispute that is agreeable to both parties.

1. Citation: The only sources that define Islamophobia are the WordNet dictionary (that simply defines it as a prejudice against Islam) and the Runnymede Trust Definition (hereafter referred as RTD). It is the RTD Germen disputes.
2. Contradictory Definition: There is a lack of citations that provide contradictory definitions of both definitions of Islamophobia. From this I contend that, whilst it is obvious that the concept of Islamophobia is criticised and rejected by some, the definition of Islamophobia as it is defined is not itself disputed.
3. Original Research: Germen feels that the RTD is disputed, demonstrating this through a line of reasoning whereby he takes each part of the RTD and demonstrates why it is objectively wrong in his opinion. I consider his line of reasoning, however, to be original research and not submissible as evidence in a Wikipedia article.
4. Logical Research: Germen disputes my assertion that the above is original research and considers it to be a logical deduction from the sources he sites. I dispute the above, making the points that:

1. Talk page deduction, logical or otherwise, is original research unless it can be demonstrated with citations that a similar line of reasoning has already been applied to the same topic,
2. The rules of "formal" or "boolean" logic cannot apply as Germen would have it in the realm of encyclopaedia editing to prove or disprove a thesis or not. Formal logic requires firm, agreed upon axioms and logical statements that can either be true of false, not gradations thereof, and
3. Setting out to prove or disprove a thesis is most likely against WP:NPOV.

Reject RTD Germen and another user reject the RTD altogether, claiming that the Runnymede Trust is not a reputable source of information. I dispute this, demonstrating that the RTD is accepted by various official bodies and that, whilst the RT is a think tank with a stated bias in favor of multi-culturalism and against racism and so forth, that bias in itself not a reason to reject a source or citation and that the RTD is one of the only sources defining Islamophobia we have to work with.

From the above I would like to propose the following:

1. We must agree that the RTD requires, at minimum, discussion in the Islamophobia article.
2. We must also agree that Islamophobia as a concept is rejected and disputed and that this of course deserves mention in the article.
3. If citations can be provided that directly (ie. without additional original research) contradict or dispute the RTD and other definitions of Islamophobia I will concede that alternative definition exists and remove the RTD from the introduction to the Islamophobia article into it's own section in the article, or some other agreed upon compromise.
4. If citation cannot be found as above, I would ask that parties accept that the RTD is at least one possible agreed definition of Islamophobia and that we write the article without poisoning the well and subverting the concept of Islamophobia from the introduction of the article, i.e. by accepting both definitions of the Islamophobia as the accepted definition, even if we disagree on how that definition or concept applies.

I hope the above makes sense and that people can see what I am attempting to get at with the above. I also hope the above seems concilatory and ask people point out where they think I'm being unreasonable.

I would also ask that, rather than posting comments in the above, we craete a discussion section below for discussion of points raised above. Much tension and confusion arises when comments are interleaved. Axon (talk|contribs) 10:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

(agreed; from now on comments will follow below. Germen.)

Summary of the agreed points and disputed points

Points in which parties agree

• The main cause of the editing conflict regarding the Islamophobia article is a difference in point of view about the definition of islamophobia.
• The Runnymede Trust Definition is worth mentioning and discussion.
• The concept of islamophobia is disputed (but not by the two parties)
• The editing conflict should be resolved by arguments, not by ad hominem attacks or bad-faith personal remarks.

Points in which parties disagree

• Axon regards reasoning from primary and secondary sources as original research, while Germen regards it as permissible encyclopedic endeavour, as long as the logical line of reasoning is unambigious and not disputed.
• Germen argues that the Runnymede Trust Definition has as per current state of affairs not enough universal acceptance to be included in the introductory paragraph, while Axon argues that should be included it in the introductory paragraph.
• Axon argues that criticsm of the islamophobia concept should be put in a criticism section, but not in the introductory paragraph, while Germen thinks the dispute should be mentioned in the introductory paragraph as well in a separate criticism section.
• Germen wishes to demonstrate and reference the truth and falsity of certain prejudices, whilst Axon disagrees the article should make this distinction as objective and considers this to be original research and POV.

Rewriting of the Runnymede Trust Definition from a Islam-centered point of view

The sources which I quote as evidence of the disputed nature of the islamophobicity ( ;) ) of certain RD claims are rejected by Axon. ZI think it may be of help to rewrite the RD from an islamic point of view to a logically equivalent form.--

• Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.
  • Muslims are one people, ummah, and should be at solidarity with each other. Religious innovation in islamic matters, bidah is not allowed.
• Islam is seen as separate and 'other'. It does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them.
  • Islam is pure and unique. It has not elements of pre-islamic and islam-contemporary cultures.
• Islam is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist.
  • Non-Muslims see Islam as inferior, primitive and barbaric. Rationalism is inferior to Allahs wisdom, such as the Qur'an and Sunnah. Islam treats men and women differently, because Allah ordered to do so in e.g. Qur'an 4:34.
• Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism and engaged in a 'clash of civilisations'.
  • Participating in unarmed or armed Jihad is an islamic religious obligation. Islam is engaged in a clash of civilizations against non-Muslim societies,in which Islam must prevail.
• Islam is seen as a political ideology and is used for political or military advantage.
  • Islam is not only a religion, but a political system as well in which Allah wants Muslims to live.
• Criticisms made of the West by Islam are rejected out of hand.
  • Non-Muslims fail to recognize their innate inferiority to Islam, because Allah blinds them for the truth.
• Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.
  • Non-Muslims discriminate Muslims because of their hostility towards Muslims. Muslims are not allowed to have close ties with non-Muslims and must live separately from them.
• Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural or normal.
  • Non-Muslims are the worst of creatures and therefore have a natural hostility towards Muslims.

The way I rewrote this statements have ample support from primary sources. Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 11:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

On Agreed and Disagreed points

Sorry, Germen, I think you misunderstand my position: I would like to ammened the agreed positions as follows:

The Runnymede Trust Definition is worth mentioning in a subparagraph

This should be modified to state "at minimum"... that is the RTD is at least worth mentionion in the article a signifact view on Islamophobia

The Runnymede Trust Definition has not enough universal acceptance to be included in the introductory paragraph.

I actually do argue that the RTD should be included in the introductory paragraph above.

The concept of islamophobia is disputed (but not by the two parties); this fact should be mentioned in the introductory paragraph.

Whilst I agree that the concept of islamophobia is disputed, I do not necesarily agree this should be mentioned in the introductory paragraph. I would argue that criticism should more properly belong in a Criticism section. As I stated above, without good reason we should at least allow Islamophobia to be defined as it stands. Axon (talk|contribs) 10:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, I will update the points. Updated; Axon, do you agree with this version? --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 10:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the bit about "not by two parties": surely the definition is disputed by one of the parties? Axon (talk|contribs) 11:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

In this particular case the Wikipedia admin definition of "party" and the Wordnet dictionary definition of "party", to which I subscribe, do coincide :) --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 11:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, let's not get into that again, shall we :) I do agree with the points above, except I'm still a little confused about the references to parties: which parties are you referring to? Axon (talk|contribs) 11:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that, in addition to considering it to be original research, I do also dispute your reasoning, but have not directly disputed the reasoning on the talk page. As I consider your reasoning to be original research, disputing it would also, from my perspective, be original research and thus, from my perspective, be irrelevant. Axon (talk|contribs) 11:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Parties: we both, in this particular case. Of course we are both representatives of the two groups who differ.

I can rephrase my reasoning in strict Boolean way if you like. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 11:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Boolean logic is not required, but I'm still confused: so, you are saying you yourself do not dispute the concept of Islamophobia, per se? Axon (talk|contribs) 11:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I recognize there exists islamophobia, which I define as any negative prejudice about islam or Muslims. E.g. if you believe that all Muslims are terrorists, you are holding an islamophobic prejudice. If you believe that traditional islam supports acts which in common parlance are described as terrorist, this is not necessarily a prejudice and hence not islamophobic.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 12:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, that makes it clear to me. However, I do dispute that, just because you personally do not consider something to be a prejudice, that automatically means it is not islamophobic. Axon (talk|contribs) 13:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Note that I do not refer to my personal opinion, but to objective,verifiable sources to support the claim. If there is insufficient proof for a certain islam-critical claim, e.g. "all Muslims are terrorists", it can be considered as islamophobic. If there is objective backing of the claim, such as a widely accepted fatwa or opinion poll, the islam-critical claim is not islamophobia. That simple it is. Therefore, citing sources is essential. I am only restating primary sources which contradict the Runnymede Trust Definition. If the RTD would become law, all Sunni and shi'a scholars would be guilty of islamophobia, because they islam as unchangeable and consider the unity of all Muslims as fard.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 15:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that is quite a strong claim to say these sources are completely objective and should be taken as gospel truth. Also, these sources would seem only contradict to the RTD if taken selectively and with a certain a priori POV (ie you naturally assume in the above that what a few mulsims believe, all muslims naturally believe), ie your original research. Axon (talk|contribs)

On rewriting of the Runnymede Trust Definition from a Islam-centered point of view

I'm not sure this would be helpful, Germen. I might still consider such a proposal to be original research. I dispute there is any, single Islam-centered POV from which could write such an article on. Axon (talk|contribs) 11:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I think this whole Runnymede Definition is original research by the way. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 11:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you do, but for the purposes of Wikipedia I don't think it is helpful or fair to consider it as such. It is clearly not original research as we would define it here. Also, as in my original point, I'm still not sure what you hope to achieve from the above: IMHO, it is still original research and helps in no way to resolve this dispute to the satisfaction of both parties. Axon (talk|contribs) 11:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, let's try another approach them. Do you agree that if reputative mainstream Islamic sources corroborate with one of the elements of the Runnymede Definition, this element can not be classified as prejudice, hence do not qualify as a manifestation of islamophobia? --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 12:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it's clear the core point of contention and where mediation is truly needed here is whether or not the above is original research. Obviously, I do disagree that the selective evidence you cite above is objective and indisputable proof that the RTD is "wrong". In fact, I would even suggest that your objective here, which is to prove that all or some fo the RTD is wrong, is against the NPOV policy. Even more so, I hold that your line of reasoning is itself original research, unless you can demonstrate that the same line of reasoning has been applied to the topic of RTD and Islamophobia by one or more reputable sources. Axon (talk|contribs) 13:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, this issue seems not to be solvable. If even primary sources are not accepted by you we have a severe problem. Here are other articles critical of the islamophobia definition by the Runnymede Trust. [1] [2] [3] --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 15:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I think you misrepresent my position here: I do not reject primary sources but reject what I see as your original research. The sources (those that are of a more reputable nature) you cite do not question the definition of islamophobia but simply question the concept. None really seem to focus on islamophobia and instead make points critical of Islam. Axon (talk|contribs) 15:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

You probably have other primary sources in mind than I meant. I thought that was clear because I referred to primary sources before the addition of RTD critical links. I referred to the five fatwa's to which I have provided links. Islamonline.net bombs so I was not able to add links to that ocean of islamic wisdom, nevertheless islam-qa.com should do for now. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 15:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I refer to your my remarks below on original research. Axon (talk|contribs) 15:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Mentioning primary sources is not original research. Sigh. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 15:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Those aren't technically primary sources, and the discussion above is being reproduced in the thread below. Apologies if this dicussion is boring you: if you would prefer, we can try to take this back to the ArbCom? Axon (talk|contribs) 15:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Solution

Given the above, I propose the following compromise:

1. Include both the dictionary and and a rough outline of the RTD in the first, short introductory paragraph.
2. This should be followed by another short introductory paragraph summarising the criticisms of the concept of Islamophobia (elaborated on in a seperate Criticism section)
3. Agree the concept is disputed but not disputing the actual definition without supporting citation.

Thoughts? Axon (talk|contribs) 11:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• I see some points in which I agree, but in others I disagree. My detailed response will follow soon. Note that there is not so much support for islam-critical statements in official political sources, because in many countries like Australia there is legal persecution of those who criticize islamic source materials, fatwa's or the religion but there is a lot of criticism in more underground organisations. I can cite several underground sources, which are of high analytical level. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 11:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• • That may or may not be so, but one could equally argue that most Western leaders and governments (Bush, Blair, etc) are united in their condemnation of criticism of Islam as a whole. Without wanting to get sidetracked into a discussion on this topic here, "underground" sources will be considered like any other source, governmental or not, but only if they meet criteria for at least being reputable. It all rather depends on what you mean by underground. Axon (talk|contribs) 11:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
    • E.g. online fatwa's, Qur'an quotes, hadith quotes, articles of Bat Yeor, Ibn Warraq, Koenraad Elst, Robert Spencer, Ali Sina and Daniel Pipes.= Several of them are qualified researchers of Islam-related matters and have some reputation. Their position, however, is rejected by mainstream politicians, which wish to maintain that "islam is peace" and other claims which are unsubstantiated by sources. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 13:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
      • I have no problem referencing the POV of significant minority views (which I was I understand by what you mean when you say "rejected by mainstream politicians") provided there is some attempt to indicate that they are minority and that the references are directly germain to the topic of Islamophobia and are not just attacks/criticsms on Islam in general. This is aside from the issue of whether or not the use of such sources should be combined with what I consider original research above. Axon (talk|contribs) 13:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
        • I think this is a problem because islamophobia is a word which is mainly used by a select group of people. Others reject the word as a neologism. They do, however, treat substantiated and unsubstantiated prejudices about islam. I would like to refer too to the definition of original research. Original research produces new facts. The fact that mainstream islam considers the ummah as one and islamic tenets as divine and thus unchangeable is well-known and proven by sources[4] [5] [6] [7][8]. So according to islamic theology, islam has to be a monolithic block which resists change. You see, I am not adding new information, just rephrasing established facts.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 15:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm not at all sure what to make of those sources you cite: they would seem, on surface, to be of not a very reputable nature. Again, I refuse to get bogged down into a debate over your reasoning given the reasons stated above, particularly until such time as we can clarify whether it is original research or not. Axon (talk|contribs) 15:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Also, original research is not just about producing new facts, but producing new primary and secondary sources. In this case I would argue that you are generating a new secondary source (that is a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data) for the purposes of directly contradicting the RTD from existing primary and secondary sources that are otherwise unrelated to Islamophobia and the RTD. Axon (talk|contribs) 15:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
        • You are welcome to provide more reputable fatwa's which contradict this ones. As per now, I have provided primary sources, you haven't. Comparing two statements and say that they are equal is not producing new information, hence new sources.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 15:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm finding this discussion quite circular. You do not respond to my point: do you reject my claim that you are attempting to generate a new secondary source here?
      • Perhaps some mediation is indeed required here. Axon (talk|contribs) 15:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Agreed. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 15:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
      • As an side, I may not be get to edit Wikipedia this weekend. My absence is not intended as a snub to this mediation. Axon (talk|contribs) 15:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Axon, your absence is accepted. I maintain that some elementary evaluation and combination of primary sources should be possible. The writing of articles becomes almost impossible using this restrictions. There may be a solution though. It can be stated as fact that mainstream Sunni viewpoints qualify as islamophobic according to the Runnymede Trust Definition, or the applicable mainstream Sunni viewpoints can be literally mentioned after each part of the Runnymede Trust Definition.

--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 09:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

summary by dab

sorry for the lag, guys. It appears that mediation is hardly necessary, since you do seem to be able to conduct a constructive argument face to face. The exact delineation of original research is open to dispute, of course, and it is certainly necessary to admit that it is possible to disagree here. Informed and constructive debate should still be able to produce a compromise. As a historical linguist, I take a historical approach to explaining terminology. "Islamophobia" is a recent term. It will not be possible to give an unambiguous definition. Rather, what the article should do is report who has used the term in what contexts. Which instances are notable will of course be debatable. The article is not doing such a bad job at this at the moment.

Points in which parties disagree

• 1. Axon regards reasoning from primary and secondary sources as original research, while Germen regards it as permissible encyclopedic endeavour, as long as the logical line of reasoning is unambigious and not disputed.
  • imho, it is impossible to write an article entirely without reasoning. As long as the line of reasoning is undisputed, that should be fair enough. As soon as it is disputed, of course, it has to be rephrased or attributed. dab (ᛏ)
• 2. Germen argues that the Runnymede Trust Definition has as per current state of affairs not enough universal acceptance to be included in the introductory paragraph, while Axon argues that should be included it in the introductory paragraph.
  • my impression is that the intro is unwieldy right now. rather than competing in stuffing arguments in it, I suggest it be brutally stripped to a single sentence. See my defninition of Wikipedia:Lead fixation. Even if it is notable, I would say that the full text of the Runnymede defninition is too much detail for the lead. It could be alluded to, e.g., several bodies (e.g. the Runnymede Trust, ..., ...) have given more formal definitions of the term" or something like this.dab (ᛏ)
• 3. Axon argues that criticsm of the islamophobia concept should be put in a criticism section, but not in the introductory paragraph, while Germen thinks the dispute should be mentioned in the introductory paragraph as well in a separate criticism section.
  • as above, imho, allude to the existence of such criticism, but give the details in the body. The lead shouldn't be longer than two or three lines in such a short article. dab (ᛏ)
• 4. Germen wishes to demonstrate and reference the truth and falsity of certain prejudices, whilst Axon disagrees the article should make this distinction as objective and considers this to be original research and POV.
  • See Talk:Islam. We have many anti-Islamic editors here, but unfortunately it is very difficult to get them to do encyclopedic work. I am asking for an Oposition to Islam (or Criticism of Islam) article. before such an article is compiled and can be linked to, it appears bad faith to sprinkle other articles with sweeping accusations. In such an article, all these accusations would be entirely on-topic (but will still need to be referenced, and to be of a certain notability, of course). It will then be possible to say something like "some of views among those termed 'Islamophobic' are also shared by more moderate critics of Islam, see Opposition to Islam, and [REFERENCE] is of the opinion that charges of "Islamophobia" are sometimes put forward in order to avoid having to answer to legitimate criticism of issues of contemporary Islam." dab (ᛏ)

that's just my take on these points. To summarize, I suggest the summary be stripped as much as possible to avoid Wikipedia:Lead fixation of either party. dab (ᛏ) 14:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Germens reaction to Dab's mediation

1. Agreed ;) According to Axon, however, my reasoning has several flaws. So we should check sentence by sentence whether the reasoning is acceptible by both parties, especially regarding sensitive issues like the RTD.

2. Agreed. A candidate could be the Wordnet definition of islamophobia or another notable and by both of us agreed upon definition.

3. Agreed.

4. Agreed. No claims will be allowed which are not source-based or logically derived from reliable sources with mathematical-logical rigour.

Axon's reaction to Dab's mediation

1. First, I would agree a degree of reasoning is acceptable within an article but the scope and detail of Germen's convoluted reasoning is far in excess of what would reasonable consider to be ambiguously covered by WP:NOR. I would indeed dispute Germen's reasoning here as well. In fact, I would use the RTD itself as evidence that a significant view that Germen's reasoning is disputed.

2. I'm not sure I see this as a compromise that would satisfy both parties: it is Germen's desire to expunge all mention of the RTD from the introduction and I would easily prefer to keep at least a summary of the RTD, it being the only real description of the term and the most pertinant reference we have. I agree introductions should be brief and perhaps a short summary of the RTD is required.

3. Agreed.

4. Agreed.

Axon (talk|contribs) 09:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Response to Axon

1. I have provided for this one. You seem to agree to Boolean logic with mathematical rigour, so this way, when we cooperate, we can avoid convoluted logic. The RTD is not challenging my logic, the RTD is proposing a certain definition without logical justification, thus amounting to adding a dogma, a set of axiomata in the parlour of mathematical logic.

2. As far as I consider the RTD it is a quite loose bunch of eight mostly unrelated statements, which seems to imply that it is almost inpossible to summarize it in one or two sentences as is your goal. The only effective way would be repeating Mohammed Arkouns statement that Islamists and islamophobes share the same view on islam :), so your proposal might run into some serious practical problems. Another method would be to only refer to the RTD, which would not be of extremely high informational value. Your suggestions for alternative solutions, however, are most welcomed. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 10:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

My suggestion is to mention the existence of the RTD in the intro, as it appears the most notable formal definition brought forward yet, but devote its proper section to it further down in the article.

Mohammed Arkouns statement that "Islamists and islamophobes share the same view on islam" is an excellent reference: Since islamophobes tend to perceive Islamism as the only manifestation of Islam, or tend to downplay the importance of more moderate, or mystic and faith-oriented movements, they tend to criticize Islam when they should properly be criticizing Islamism. There is such an unholy alliance. Islamist terror helps the US regime stay in power and push its warmongery through Congress, while US warmongery helps the Islamist terrorists rouse enthusiasm and recruits among the Muslim population. Both sides would really be quite powerless without the other side's militance. A classical escalation.

re the "logical reasoning", for the purposes of encylopedia articles, reasoning does not only need to be reasonable, it also needs to be exactly on topic. Discussion of entirely undisputed but tangential factoids may insert serious bias into an article.

My bottomline here is that I think it quite evident that the RTD is on-topic and notable enough for inclusion in the Islamophobia article. I would urge you not to haggle about the intro too much, just find some intermediate solution barely acceptable to both, and move on to more constructive debates. Criticism of the RTD of course also has its place, as long as it can be attributed to notable sources (major newpapers, political pundits and the like). I cannot imagine that nobody outside the talkpages of Wikipedia has criticized the RTD, but if that was the case, I am afraid it will have to go uncriticized until that changes. dab (ᛏ) 11:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Your suggestions above re: the introduction and on-topic reasoning and citation, seems reasonable and I would agree to them and your assessments above. In fact, there is not much in the above that I do disagree with and would go so far as to state I would share your perspective here, dab, almost exactly. Axon (talk|contribs) 11:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Several attempts by my side have not succeeded in finding mainstream sources which criticize the Runnymede Trust Definition of islamophobia. It is frightening that this definition and this report got absorbed into mainstream English and EU political circles without even a public discussion or mentioning in the parlemantiary press. Nevertheless there are obvious fallacies in aforementioned definition as pointed out by Zeno and me. Those fallacies can be brought into light without violating the WP:NOR directive by intersparsed citations about islam which are corroborated by official sources and I would like to propose this as a compromise solution on the WP:NOR objections by Axon. [9] [10] I also would like to reserve the right to have a slight interpretation like this: "Those viewpoints of authoritative Muslims bodies and respected scholars of all four Sunni and the Shi'a maddhabs are islamophobic according to the Runnymede Trust Definition." Regarding the rest I do agree with both Dab and Axon. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 12:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

RTD redux

I am beginning to fear that I may be slightly more involved in the topic than would be appropriate for a mediator. But let me say, Germen, that I am pleasantly surprised by your readiness to listen and to compromise. Zeno, on the other hand, imho is exhibiting a disconcerting tendency to the inverse. In any case, your proposed statement

"The viewpoints of authoritative Muslims bodies and respected scholars of all four Sunni and the Shi'a maddhabs are islamophobic according to the Runnymede Trust Definition."

appears to me quite nonsensical. The RTD consists of eight points. Only if all eight points apply to a position can it be considered islamophobic. Now let's see (I am going through all eight points, considering whether they are applicable to ("authoritative Muslims bodies and respected scholars of all four Sunni and the Shi'a maddhabs")

1. Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.

   arguably although few authoritative bodies will be unaware of the irreconcilable differences between Shiites and Sunnites

2. Islam is seen as separate and 'other'. It does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them.

   hardly 'other'

3. Islam is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist.

   what? where has any authoritative Muslim body ever claimed such a thing?

4. Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism and engaged in a 'clash of civilisations'.

   hardly 'threatening'

5. Islam is seen as a political ideology and is used for political or military advantage.

   evidence that an authoritative body of Muslims has described Islam as a "political ideology"?

6. Criticisms made of the West by Islam are rejected out of hand.

   um, that would be their own criticism? how's that?

7. Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.

   hardly.

8. Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural or normal.

   check.

so, while I have agreed above that there is an intrinsic connection between Islamist and Islamophobic views, the claim that by the RTD Islamists themselves are Islamophobes is nonsense. Out of eight points, two may apply to both tendencies, three points may as well be partially ascribed to Islamists, and three points are totally irreconcilable with Islamism. This count imho does go a little way towards showing the underlying connections, but frankly, your statement that "Islamists are Islamophobes according to the RTD" is untenable. Also, an argument of a length such as the one I have just made will be inappropriate without any attribution. I would support, however, mention of Mohammed Arkouns, and allusion to the alarming mutual goals of Islamists and Islamophobes. dab (ᛏ) 13:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Dab, the Runnymede Trust is not clear about the validity and interpretation of this definition. As far as I can see, they describe those eight viewpoints as islamophobic viewpoints. Please

• note that I did not say that islamists are islamophobes, I did however clearly say that views held by respected mainstream islamic religious bodies, such as the Al Azhar University and national islamic authorities of countries like Indonesia and Pakistan are islamophobic according to the Runnymede Trust Definition.
• Note that the Runnymede Trust Definition does not talk about islamophobes, as you seem to do, but about islamophobia. So is is permitted to use this definition to classify a certain opinion as islamophobic, but not so to classify a certain person as islamophobe, because it is out of the scope of the definition. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 17:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I have to admit, despite the above discussion, I was rather concerned to find Sinking the Runnymede Trust Definition on the 'SIIEG' talk page by Germen. I understood you thought the RTD was at least notable. The whole idea of trying to "sink" a legitimate, on-topic source seems a little POV to me and against the spirit of mediation and Wikipedia. Even if you get the citations you are seeking, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV still applies as per mine and dabs comments above. Can you confirm your commitment to this mediation, Germen? Axon (talk|contribs) 15:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course, Axon, I still support the mediation effort. Allow me to explain my request at SIIEG a little. The Runnymede Trust Definition probably only 'floats' because of intensive pushing by a well-organised lobby group of Europarlementarians which advocate a more pro-Arabic EU policy. According to my analysis the Runnymede Trust Definition of islamophobia is language pollution because of reasons which I have stated before. I think it is legitimate to collect evidence against the validity of any encyclopedic source, because this will improve the overall quality of Wikipedia. I do not understand why collection of information amounts to obstruction of the mediation account. I am just preparing for writing a well-sourced Critics section and this whole issue has nothing to do with the mediation effort. May be you should take things less personal. We try to write a good and well-sourced Wikipedia article about islamophobia and my efforts should be seen in this light. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 17:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I suppose I could similarly do the rounds with pro-Islam editors and call for arguments and makes calls for citations that support the RTD. Where would that get us? By doing so, however, you side-step the points dab and I raise regarding original research, on-topic citation and so forth. Will you address these points here in mediation?

Also, I'm not really taking things personally, here, and I hope you don;t think any of this has been personal: this is all about WP:NPOV for me, and always will be. Axon (talk|contribs) 17:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Axon, I welcome any constructive addition of information, although I believe the task of people collecting evidence which defends the pro-RTD POV will be daunting. So you are welcome to start an attempt, although I doubt this attempt will be particularly fruitful. Anyhow, it will make Wikipedia and this article a better source. I am happy to hear you don't take things personal and I hope you will believe from me the same. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 17:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Germen, you haven't answered my question. do you understand the RTD to define as islamophobic an opinion that

• (a) fulfills any of the eight points?
• (b) fulfills all of the eight points?

Also, you will admit that your campaigning against 'language pollution' has no place on Wikipedia. You are completely free to do that offsite, and then cite the results you acheive, but WP is just documenting opinions, not 'correcting' 'false' opinions, or even correcting 'false' language. Honestly, I do not understand why you think the definition is so bad. I suppose off the top of my head I would have come up with something roughly similar. I mean, you may object to the term as biased altogether, but if you're going to use it, its meaning will be more or less as outlined by the RTD, no? To put it differently, if you were in charge of the RT, how would you define the term? dab (ᛏ) 18:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Dab, let's use a common approach in mathematics: proving a point is true by proving its opposite is false. My interpretation of the RTD: ANY of the eights points are considered a manifestation of islamophobia. Your interpretation of the RTD: ALL points must apply to make something islamophobia, so only the combination of those eight points would mean islamophobia. E.g: Many people who loathe islam, emphasize that Muhammad took many elements from the Qur'an from the Jewish, CHristian, Arab pagan and Zoroastrian religions. So point 2 does nto apply, but I guess Axon or Mustafaa would call that guy a islamophobe. So fail the Wikipedia requirement of obviousness. The conciliation of your definition with the dictionary definition is problematic as well, as the dictioanry definition talks about prejudices and you talk about a collection of several supposed prejudices, which all must apply.

At second, we already saw that several statements of the RD are equal to the statements of reputable mainstream islamic scholars from past and present and consistent with Qur'an and Sunnah. If I would have to improve the RD, I would concentrate on criticizing sweeping generalisations about all Muslims and remove four of the eight statements which are contradictory to islamic sources. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 18:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

but Germen, can't you see that this is a complete misunderstanding? You are only objecting to it so much because you have misunderstood it. I have no doubt whatsoever that the definition is meant to apply to positions that fulfill all these points. Furthermore, the "dictionary definition" is simply compositional, from Islam+phobia, i.e. it doesn't need further references, but it is hazy. The RT attempts to define what qualifies as "negative prejudice". And in any case, it will still only be listed under "Definitions" as the one proposed by the RTD. For the best of me, I just cannot see what you are objecting to, since that really looks perfectly straightforward to me. Nobody is making any claims in the article. We are saying "phobia means prejudice", and then "The RD has come up with the following list of requirements for a position to qualify as islamophobic". I am sorry, but I don't think I will be able to be helpful beyond that, because I simply don't get what you are objecting to. dab (ᛏ) 19:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Intro

Regarding the intro, I would suggest something minimal, along the lines of:

Islamophobia is a recent neologism used to refer to irrationally negative views of or prejudice against Islam and Muslims.

• End of Intro
• Section one: Definitions

Several authors define islamophobia more specifically -- blah blah -- RTD -- etc.

Seeing, however, that the dialogue between the two of you is quite constructive, I am beginning to feel that this should be taken back to the Islamophobia talkpage, because, what's the use of the two of you agreeing on a particular wording, if it will only be torn apart by third parties. dab (ᛏ) 13:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm ready to cease mediation: it's taken me two months to get just to this stage and I don't want to "rock the boat", so to speak. I would certainly continue mediation at this stage and value your input into the dicussion. I would argee with the above but would ammend the intro sentence as follows:

Islamophobia is a contemporary neologism used to refer to negative views of or prejudice against Islam and Muslims.

I would avoid the use of the word "recent" (according to the page, it's ~10 years old so its debatable as to whether it is recent or not). I would also avoid the use of the term "irrationality"... no definition I've seen makes reference to rationality or otherwise. Perhaps some other adjective like "unsustantiated" or "unwarranted" would be in order. Also, is it Muslims with capital 'M' or small 'm'? I always thought it was muslims with a small 'm'. Axon (talk|contribs) 14:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

"contemporary neologism" seems a tad redundant (as is "recent neologism"). It should just be "neologism". The "irrational" aspect creeps in with the phobia formation, but it can be left out, since it is partially included in "prejudice". This would land us at:

Islamophobia is a neologism used to refer to negative prejudice against Islam and Muslims.

("negative" since there may arguably be positive prejudices, although they would tend to be described as "idealizations") dab (ᛏ) 14:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

That looks ready to go to me. Axon (talk|contribs) 14:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC) Although, is "negative" neccesary given that the prejudices are against Islam? Axon (talk|contribs) 14:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

ah, but, to really hit the reader with the blunt npov stick,

Islamophobia is a neologism used to refer to what is perceived as negative prejudice against Islam and Muslims.

clarifying that naturally the prejudice is as perceived by the users of the term, so to accuse someone of Islamophobia is to accuse them of prejudice. But I do suspect that it is also used to accuse people of irrationality (as with any phobia), but I cannot prove it. As the "phobia" article points out, "'phobias" are negative attitudes towards something, possibly, but not necessarily of the nature of a prejudice.

Usually thease kinds of "phobia" are is described as fear, dislike, disapproval, prejudice, hatred, discrimination, or hostility towards the object of the "phobia".

ok, so how about linking [[phobia] from the intro?

Islamophobia is a neologism used to refer to what is perceived as a phobic attitude of hatred or prejudice against Islam and Muslims.

dab (ᛏ) 14:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Not to rain on your parade while the going is good (to mix metaphors), but "what is perceived as" strikes me a little as weasel words: perceived by whom? What is perceived as? The use of "perceived" also has a sub-text of self-deceived, at least in my mind. I could be wrong though.

Also, the making explicit the link between Islamophobia and psychological phobia may not be NPOV here, either. Better to link to phobia in an entymolgy section. Also, there is no little controversy over the usage of the term "phobic attitude". I would still prefer the before last definition:

Islamophobia is a neologism used to refer to prejudice against Islam and Muslims.

Alternatively we could define it as homopohobia:

Islamophobia is a neologism used to refer to irrational fear of or prejudice against Islam and Muslims.

Thoughts? Axon (talk|contribs) 14:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

hm, I don't consider the 'perceived' part weasly at all. we say it is used to refer to something. Evidently, that implies a user. Just as evidently, Wikipedia cannot answer for the intelligence or sanity of every user of the word, so "perceived as" refers to whoever uses the term. I.e. to say "you are an Islamophobe" translates to "I perceive you as prejudiced against or hateful of Islam". However, I am fine with your version (I am not even an editor of the Islamophobia article), so let's wait for Germen's take on the issue. dab (ᛏ) 15:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I would put my two cents on defining islamophobia as "negative prejudice", as this avoids the "phobia" connotations, islamophobia cannnot be compared with e.g. agoraphobia or vertigo (I never heard about acute streaks of panic because of islamophobia) and this is in line with a notable source. Being offline for two days, this can explain I was off the radar screen for some time. [... Axon, I am] praising your current non ad-hominem approach. I hope we can continue working this way, so we will establish a new hallmark of editorial quality which will be unmatched in Wikipedia. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 17:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

right, so what is your suggestion for phrasing the intro? Note that the phobia article itself states that there are noon-clinical uses, as I have pointed out above:

Usually thease [nonclinical] kinds of "phobia" are is described as fear, dislike, disapproval, prejudice, hatred, discrimination, or hostility towards the object of the "phobia".

dab (ᛏ) 18:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Dab, as "negative, irrational views" as equal to negative prejudices, my suggestion would be to keep it as per your suggestion short and concise. "any negative prejudice about islam" would do the job. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 18:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

so you suggest

Islamophobia is a neologism used to refer to prejudice against Islam and Muslims.

right? But, since if someone has an irrational fear of Islam, surely that would qualify as Islamophobia? The mere 'prejudice' case may be more frequent, but logically

Islamophobia is a neologism used to refer to irrational fear of or prejudice against Islam and Muslims.

appears to make more sense to me. dab (ᛏ) 18:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, agreed, although to a rather high degree tautological. We can use this sentence in the first paragraph. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 18:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

As Axon was the one to suggest this sentence and we both agree, is it allright to replace the first paragraph with this sentence and move the rest in a "Definitions" section? --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 18:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I suppose you'll have to ask for article unprotection first. dab (ᛏ) 19:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

One admin already has unlocked it. OK, added the first paragraph and moved the content into a separate heading Definitions. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 19:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

And I see you've leaped on this opportunity to make loads of edits, all uncommented and all without prior discussion in mediation here or on the talk page. What is more you have once again unilaterally included your highly dubious original and off-topic reseearch despite agreement above that this should not be included. Way to mediate, Germen. Axon (talk|contribs) 09:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I am glad we have been able to make some progress re the intro, but I am afraid I am unable to grasp Germen's position. It should be as simple as "cite your sources". Then there can be debate about notability, and sequence of presentation. But I don't see why it is so difficult to reach the "no sources => no inclusion" stage. The debate should be about sourced statements and how to present them exclusively. Everything else is just a waste of time at this stage. dab (ᛏ) 09:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• I don't understand the point, Dab. I did cite my sources, as you can see in all parts which I added. Regarding the Runnymede Trust Definiton article, I just added well-sourced facts and grouped them according to the eight sub-definitions of the Runnymede Trust treatment. My text did not contain original research. As far as I understand, this should be exactly what you want. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 14:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)