Talk:Islamophobia/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Article is currently Western-centric and heavily prejudiced against Muslims

Currently, this article is Western-centric and gives undue weight to the sentiments of right-wing political commentators in Western Europe and America.

The bigoted opinions of some irrelevant anti-Muslim political commentators in Western Europe and USA are given undue weight in the current version of this page. Rather than explaining how Muslims suffer heavily from anti-Muslim bigotry and American imperialist policies across the world, the current version of this overtly biased article primarily focuses on how some far-right bigots in USA and Western Europe are offended by the term "Islamophobia".

I have added some templates to this page. The extreme anti-Muslim prejudice displayed in the current version of this biased article is an example of the structural Anglo-American centric systemic bias in wikipedia. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

So in order to combat "structural Anglo-American centric systemic bias" you want us to rewrite the page to focus on the United States? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Strawman question. Dont deflect.

"English Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to NPOV?

Yes, it is, especially when dealing with articles that require an international perspective."

WP:NPOVFAQ Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree on the structural issues (Anglo-American bias is practically our original sin), I question whether your remedies to those issues are appropriate. I would suggest instead of making it more about the US we maybe expand the focus to Central, South, and Southeast Asia. The fact that we don't have a section for India isn't great. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's BackI don't think an NPOV template is warranted given only one person is arguing for it. Unless you think it is. @Shadowwarrior8 There is a more appropriate one, ": may not represent a worldwide view of the subject" which is what you seem to want. Doug Weller talk 16:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I would support the replacement of NPOV with Globalize, this article has gotten over-weighted with North American and European content but I don't think that there are significant NPOV issues beyond that. So in relation to the original complaints... Yes to "Article is currently Western-centric" and no to "heavily prejudiced against Muslims" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

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

I see no need for the article wide NPOV tag. The reason I removed the word "excessive" in the lead is that I thought it was not neutral. I'm not seeing a general problem. The globalize tag would be fine. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I also don't think the criticism tag is needed. This isn't an article about a person or organization who may face criticism. In this case I think it better to have a section on the academic debate and commentary as sprinkling it throughout the body would likely confuse. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The scope of the topic is undoubtedly broader than the information given in the current version of the article.

However, it is clear that the hysterical propaganda spread by Anglo-American military and political elites is one of the major instigators of Islamophobia across the world since the 1990s. There is no mention of this in the article. The current version of the article gives undue weight to American right-wing bigots who promulgate American war-propaganda and attempt to deny the existence of Islamophobia. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

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

"hysterical propaganda spread by Anglo-American military and political elites" The press has done an excellent job at spreading panic over the existential threat posed by Muslims, and the film and television industry has been dehumanising "foreigners" through its own propaganda. What makes you think that the military is calling the shots? Dimadick (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

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

  I think the second paragraph is quite absurd and totally inappropriate. I'm removing it from the lede. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  I personally don't think the antisemitism article is very good, but both of them definitely need an overhaul with scholarly sources, the overuse of news, op-eds, and think tanks is readily apparent from the references. (t · c) buidhe 04:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

9/11

During the 9/11 attacks, Islamophobia brought a great deal of attacks onto Muslims. 21hroush (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)