Template talk:Islamophobia: Difference between revisions

{{Talk header}}

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=

{{WikiProject Discrimination}}

{{tfd end|date=19 December 2011|result=no consensus}}

{{tfd end|date=10 August 2012|result=no consensus}}

{{tfd end|date=10 September 2013|result=no consensus}}

|counter = 3

==Garbage-pedia==

Please stop spreading garbage like this and stop calling various individuals and organizations silly names such as "islamophobic". I am sure it is fun writing nonsens on a social media like this, but I am just so tired of seeing the internet being used as a trash can, by awful sites like Wikipedia. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/85.81.20.149|85.81.20.149]] ([[User talk:85.81.20.149|talk]]) 21:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

I realize that it will be hard or impossible to argue neutrality here, since Wikipedia has a history of a very strong bias towards using the jargon of political correctness and cultural relativism as if it was objective, while clamping down on political terminology from the opposite camp.

Our mission is, of course, not to use ''any'' propaganda term in Wikipedia's voice itself. But my experience is that an obvious propaganda term like "Islamophobia" (it never pretended to be anything else, and that's fair enough outside of a project dedicated to Neutrality) will be defended above neutral descriptions of the phenomenon.

On the other hand, I was given an extremely hard time to even be allowed to discuss [[immigrant criminality]], a perfectly objective and neutral term for a political topic, because the mere exercise of looking at the distribution of nationalities in statistics (done by first rate secondary sources) must be prevented because it somehow implies "racism". Since strong-armed to the hyper-neutral [[immigration and crime]] even though no, the two concepts are not looked at in splendid isolation, the topic is concerned to what extent and why the people who migrate end up with higher crime rates. There are many and complex reasons, but this is still what the article is discussing.

This is pathetic, and everyone here knows it is, but many people will still prefer to go with whatever in-group they feel allegiance to as long as they feel they have numerical superiority instead of gritting their teeth and opting to be neutral no matter what (as in "writing for the enemy").

Long story short, [[WP:N]], get rid of the term "Islamophobia" used in Wikipedia's voice just like we avoid any other political neologism anywhere except in attributed quotes. It's as simple as that, and the principle cuts in every political way. Test yourself in this way: if you think that a term like "Islamophobia" can be used in Wikipedia's voice, you must be positively furious at the move of [[immigrant criminality]] to some made-up "less offensive" title. If you aren't, that's a sure sign that you are not editing neutrally but try to tilt the pedia towards your political agenda.

(I know, of course your political preference is the only correct one, or you wouldn't have chosen it, but you will still be forced to recognize that this doesn't matter when you edit Wikipedia) --[[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 15:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

: Apart from airing some conspiracy theories do you have a point? The term islamophobia is widely used in academia as have been proven over and over again. The question is do you want to change [[Template:Antisemitism]] so it says ''Criticism of Judaism and "Antisemitism"''. No? Double standards? // [[User:Liftarn|Liftarn]] ([[User talk:Liftarn|talk]])

=== Biased title ===

::This is Wikipedia, Liftarn. Wikipedia is neutral, and the people that you're calling this buzzword have reasons as to why they believe that, and unlike the Antisemites, they can back it up [[Honor_killing_in_the_United_States|with]] [[2013_Woolwich_murder|statistics]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Islamist_terrorism_in_the_United_Kingdom and reasons].

::The "widely used in academia"- remember, in America, there are collegiate institutions outside of the Mason-Dixon line that have pockets of Marxism and even ex-felons claiming to be from radial leftists (e.g. Weather Underground) -argument is a fallacy because you have not cited your sources. You know what else was once widely used in academia? The dunce hat. I'm not calling you a dunce, I'm trying to say that academia isn't a perfect gague of terminology, like the dictionary is.

::This isn't a series on "Islamic phobia", it's a series on the anti-Islam movement. Wouldn't "Islamicphobia" cover the actual and direct persecution of Muslims, such as grafitti on mosques, ham on their doorstep, and slurs?

::If anything, you could call this "Part of a series on Anti-Islamization" or "anti-Shariah" or "Islamic opposition", so on and so on, etc. etc. . Personally, I think the neutral "institutional criticism of Islam" or something is much more fair to Islam's opponents. -and don't compare this with Antisemitism. The last time I checked, Jews- in the modern day -didn't murder soldiers in the streets (UK), "honor-kill" their families (Arabic nations), fly planes into buildings (USA), persecute and arson minorities and their properties (Egypt), and form vigilante squads that go after people that are "too Western", as in Iran or Turkey.

::While you '''''should''''' include a link (examples: see also, miscellaneous, related topics) to Islamic phobia and Persecution of Muslims to a template covering the anti-Islamization movements, because they can spill into that, you should call organized opposition to Islam "Islamic phobia", unless you are willing to call the various anti-Christian leagues (e.g. Freedom From Religion) as "Christ-phobia".

::--[[Special:Contributions/99.157.108.186|99.157.108.186]] ([[User talk:99.157.108.186|talk]]) 00:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC) <br /> <br />

Liftarn is a troll. I am replying for the benefit of interested third parties.

:''The term islamophobia is widely used in academia as have been proven over and over again. The question is do you want to change Template:Antisemitism so it says Criticism of Judaism and "Antisemitism". No? Double standards?''

the first claim is untrue.

"Islamophobia" has been discussed in academia, because it is a problematic ideological term that cropped up in popular discourse over the last decade. No academic within their right mind would use it as if it was an objective descriptor. "as have been proven over and over again" doesn't even make any sense in English, so I'm not going to try and reply to it. Pretending that the term "Islamophobia" is on a par with "Antisemitism" is so plainly disingenious that I also do not think it merits a reply. There is, of course, a related debate on "criticism of Zionism/Israel" vs. "Antisemitism", and people debating in bad faith will often try to depict one as the other, but at least we have about 100 years of academic literature on the nature of Antisemitism, so this is a discussion that can actually be had.

The actual "double standards" on Wikipedia are the attempts to take one concept backed with decades and decades of academic literature, and a cranky neologism, and then pretend or demand that they should be treated on a par. see [[WP:RANDY]]. --[[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 11:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

:So the ''Islamophobia Studies Journal'' is what, not academics using the term as an objective descriptor? And the more than a dozen other academic sources brought up at [[Talk:Islamophobia/Archive_14#Proposal_to_rename_article_to_.22Anti-Islamic_sentiment.22]] is what exactly? Finally, an admin shouldnt be opening their comments with a personal attack. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<font color="#C11B17">nableezy</font>]]''' - 15:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)</small>

:Again, you dont get to force through changes that were rejected in the past. You want to change the template get consensus to do so. Kind of simple. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<font color="#C11B17">nableezy</font>]]''' - 07:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)</small>

:These edits were specifically rejected in an RFC, this is the title of the template and you cannot ignore it. No discussion coming from either of you either. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<font color="#C11B17">nableezy</font>]]''' - 13:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)</small>

:To expand on that, there was an RFC to rename this template to "Anti-Islamic sentiment" [[#Template_talk:Islamophobia#New_proposal_to_rename_the_template|here]], concurrent with the same proposal at the article talk. That failed to gain consensus at either place. You cannot now just ram through those changes as though that discussion never happened, you have an obligation to gain consensus for that change. If you dont believe the term is used by mainstream academics then I really cant help you, the evidence provided at [[Talk:Islamophobia/Archive_14#Proposal_to_rename_article_to_.22Anti-Islamic_sentiment.22]] pretty thoroughly debunked that claim, but if you would rather continue making patently, and proven, untrue statements well then I guess thats your choice. That does not however mean you control the template, your changes were discussed and rejected. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<font color="#C11B17">nableezy</font>]]''' - 13:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)</small>

It's pretty obvious that undue fear of and hostility toward Islam and its adherents exists to anyone who cruises the blogosphere. On the other hand, the term "islamophobia" has been badly abused to attempt to marginalize fair comment on some adherents of Islam and their acts ([[Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant|ISIS]], et cetera, the President's absurd claim that "ISIS is not Islamic" to the contrary. They are to Islam what the radical white power movement is to Christianity, and the government of Myanmar is to Buddhism). Just on that basis, "islamophobia" is almost the prototype pejorative label addressed in [[WP:TERRORIST]].

We should no more have an "islamophobia" banner or template than a "terrorist" banner or template. [[User:Vfrickey|loupgarous]] ([[User talk:Vfrickey|talk]]) 20:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

:Agree. "Islamophobia" is a rhetorical term to imply that criticism of Islam is inherently irrational. Officialising this rhetoric as a template grossly contravenes NPOV. [[User:Stringybark|Stringybark]] ([[User talk:Stringybark|talk]]) 09:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

== Counterjihad template ==

The controversy surrounding this specific and indeed contentious template has been so persistent now that I feel that the best measure to counterbalance it is by creating a [[counterjihad]] template which will then be used wherever the Islamophobia template is used. Either as a substitute or alongside it. [[User:Gun Powder Ma|Gun Powder Ma]] ([[User talk:Gun Powder Ma|talk]]) 22:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

:To do so would violate multiple core Wikipedia principles. Forget it. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 22:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

::Why would it violate [[WP:NPOV]] anymore than the neologism and polemical term Islamophobia? [[User:Gun Powder Ma|Gun Powder Ma]] ([[User talk:Gun Powder Ma|talk]]) 22:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

:::As you are fully aware, 'Islamophobia' is a commonly used term in both the mainstream media and in academia. 'Counterjihad' on the other hand is nothing but a fringe political current. There is really nothing more that needs to be said... [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 23:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

::::<s>Btw could you stop edit-warring over the template without [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AIslamophobia&diff=561064422&oldid=561064161 even bothering to give reasons]? Could help strengthen your credibility.</s> [[User:Gun Powder Ma|Gun Powder Ma]] ([[User talk:Gun Powder Ma|talk]]) 14:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

::::ping AndyTheGrump - I have to agree with Gun Powder Ma on this one; either [[WP:TERRORIST]] means something and ought to be enforced, or it ought to be ignored. The "islamophobia template" is one case in which [[WP:TERRORIST]] is being flouted in order to let a few political activists hijack wikipedia for their purposes.

::::I would whole-heartedly support a broader template attacking bigotry in general here. That would at once remove the problem with use of the hackneyed label "islamophobia" and cause us to focus on the real issue, neutral point of view. [[User:Vfrickey|loupgarous]] ([[User talk:Vfrickey|talk]]) 20:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

:::::What happens when the creating editor whose article is slated to receive such a template doesn't want an ugly template on the article he/she created? I had a similar experience regarding a biology subject, and the template I created was deleted. I don't see how any editor can force inclusion of a template on an article, especially if it is ugly, and distracts from the aesthetics and overall appearance of the article. How many FAs have such templates? Does anyone know? <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><b>[[User:Atsme|Atsme]]</b></font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>[[User talk:Atsme|<font color="green">^Consult</font>]] 21:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

::::::That's a difficult question. Guidance seems to favor seeking consensus, but we both know people with whom consensus is impossible. Wikipedia doesn't seem to have a very good mechanism for whistling in administrators to help editors reach consensus or rule on arbitrary placement of templates. I've already gone on record here as saying that the "islamophobia template" violates [[WP:TERRORIST]] both in its mere existence, and in its usual application to marginalize articles with which the template wielder disagrees.

::::::Unless and until Wikipedia administrators revisit the "islamophobia template" with a view of whether it is a large, ugly and superfluous substitute for balanced discussion of allegations of bigotry, Wikipedia's sort of doing the "cognitive dissonance" thing - saying we ought to do one thing, but failing to enforce it in one specific case.

::::::I think it's time for another Request for Consensus on this issue, now that more editors are beginning to really pay attention to the issues you and I have raised.

::::::After that, arbitration may be necessary to resolve the issue - since several attempts at reaching a consensus have already occurred, and at least one other editor seems to have declared a vendetta of sorts on you.[[User:Vfrickey|loupgarous]] ([[User talk:Vfrickey|talk]]) 07:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

== One Drop Rule for Inclusion in Template? ==

Is there [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AIslamophobia&diff=561064422&oldid=561064161 a one drop rule] for the inclusion in the template? If so, please provide the relevant guideline saying so. While the German mainstream media indeed widely regards PI as Islamophobic, particularly left and far left newspapers, parts of the English-language conservative media which have reported on PI emphatically disagree with this label, rather qualifying them as conservative. More importantly, the German governement has officially designated them to be "Islam-critical" in a number of parliamentary inquiries despite political pressure from SPD and The Left. This view has been long supported by the federal domestic intelligence whose very business is to identify and monitor racially or religiously motivated hate inciting news outlets.

So, opinions are certainly divided, and on balance there is not enough evidence to label PI WP officially as "Islamophobic", particularly considering how controversial the template itself has been viewed in the WP community. As of now, the sum of the evidence only would warrant an inclusion into a to be created template named and based on [[Criticism of Islamism]], but not one based on [[Islamophobia]]. [[User:Gun Powder Ma|Gun Powder Ma]] ([[User talk:Gun Powder Ma|talk]]) 14:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

:Personally, I'd be wary of Wikipedia articles using official government classifications regarding the ideology of blogs as reliable sources, regardless of who they were classifying. Wikipedia is not written by German federal domestic intelligence agencies. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 14:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

::The German government and domestic intelligence service is as [[WP:reliable]] a source as any, like it or not. [[User:Gun Powder Ma|Gun Powder Ma]] ([[User talk:Gun Powder Ma|talk]]) 14:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

:: As [[Politically Incorrect (blog)]] self-identifies as islamophobes it's rather irrelevant. // [[User:Liftarn|Liftarn]] ([[User talk:Liftarn|talk]])

:::Those mugs and T-Shirts have no bearing whatsoever on the template. Besides, as Herne sufficiently makes clear he means with phobia [[Criticism of Islam|fear of Islam(ism)]] and not prejudice or hatred in the sense of [[Islamophobia]]. And this view is shared by the government and the intelligence service, because otherwise they would have been monitored for this very reason. [[User:Gun Powder Ma|Gun Powder Ma]] ([[User talk:Gun Powder Ma|talk]]) 14:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

::::Your assertions regarding the German intelligence services appear to be original research. Can you cite them for an assertion that the blog is ''not'' Islamophobic? Were they even asked to determine this? The simple fact is that it has been widely described as such, and a single non-statement by a source that may never have been asked to comment on the issue cannot justify ignoring such sources. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 14:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

:::::You confuse the [[WP:burden of evidence]]. ''Your'' assertions regarding the German intelligence services appear to be original research. ''You'' include PI in the template, ''you'' provide the evidence that the evaluation of government and intelligence service, as well as parts of the conservative media, are to be discounted. [[User:Gun Powder Ma|Gun Powder Ma]] ([[User talk:Gun Powder Ma|talk]]) 15:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

::::::Can you please provide a source for your assertion that German intelligence services have stated that PI is not Islamophobic. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 15:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

:::::As GunPowderMa said there are left-wing and far-left sources that describe the blog as 'islamophobic' (whatever that means), whilst there are independent and conservative media that do not use that term. We should strictly avoid being partial and always mention, who claims what. Verfassungsschutz is doubtlessly a good source for seeing what the general consensus is (its purpose is to reflect the consensus in the research).[[User:Estlandia|Miacek and his crime-fighting dog]] [[User talk:Estlandia|(woof!)]] 15:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

:::::::Can you please provide a source for your assertion that German intelligence services have stated that PI is not Islamophobic. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 16:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

::::::::[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politically_Incorrect_%28blog%29#cite_note-8 Here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politically_Incorrect_%28blog%29#cite_note-Frontpage_Magazine.2C_18_June_2013-9 here]: the government and the [[Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution]] position it in the "[[Criticism of Islam|Islam-critical]] spectrum". The point is if the German authorities were regarding PI as [[Islamophobic]] in the sense of the WP article and the template, that is fostering hatred and prejudice against Muslims, they would be obliged to observe it because ''[[Volksverhetzung]]'' ("incitement of popular hatred") is a criminal act in Germany. The fact that the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution does not monitor it, is therefore proof that they don't view PI as Islamophobic. [[User:Gun Powder Ma|Gun Powder Ma]] ([[User talk:Gun Powder Ma|talk]]) 17:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::WP:OR. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 17:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

::::::::::Agreed. And see [http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/blogging-hate-anders-breivik-s-roots-in-right-wing-populism-a-776413.html] - maybe the decision not to monitor it was taken for political reasons? Or maybe they do monitor it but not officially? Who knows? The fact that they don't monitor it officially is irrelevant here. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 17:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::::Again: the Federal Office evaluates PI as "Islam-critical". Islam-critical is ''not'' islamophobic. [[User:Gun Powder Ma|Gun Powder Ma]] ([[User talk:Gun Powder Ma|talk]]) 13:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

::::::::::::That is a ridiculous statement to make, and pure WP:OR. You have produced no evidence to suggest that they were ever asked to comment on whether PI could be described as Islamophobic. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 13:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Again, please address the issue: the Federal Office evaluates PI as "Islam-critical" ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politically_Incorrect_%28blog%29#cite_note-8 Here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politically_Incorrect_%28blog%29#cite_note-Frontpage_Magazine.2C_18_June_2013-9 here]) and [[Criticism of Islam|Islam-critical]] is ''not'' [[islamophobic]]. Wikipedia has two different articles on this, so why do you keep on adding the template of [[Islamophobia]] to an organization which reliable sources evaluate as [[Criticism of Islam]]? [[User:Gun Powder Ma|Gun Powder Ma]] ([[User talk:Gun Powder Ma|talk]]) 13:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

::::::::::::::WP:OR is WP:OR no matter how many times you repeat it. Frankly I find your attempt to suggest that PI isn't Islamophobic when they have self-identified as such [http://www.spreadshirt.net/shop.php?sid=83717] rather ridiculous. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 14:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::So could you start to address the collected evidence, please? If you feel that some slogan on a mug in webstore constitutes 1. a [[WP:reliable]] source and 2. trumps all other sources however reliable they are, then take it to the reliable source noticeboard because it is not for more than one reason. What you fail to acknowledge is that the PI article has been recently expanded by new sources which make the previous designation, to which I did not strongly object, make the subject of a reevaluation with these new sources taking a different view from parts of the German media. [[User:Gun Powder Ma|Gun Powder Ma]] ([[User talk:Gun Powder Ma|talk]]) 14:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Andy is correct that your views about the Federal Office are OR. And clearly with two of us disagreeing with you you don't have a consensus. Then there's [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9cIvo0QwbiYC&pg=PA39&dq=%22%22politically+incorrect%22+blog+islamophobia&hl=en&sa=X&ei=M67JUYKXPMrB0gW1xYGgAg&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22%22politically%20incorrect%22%20blog%20islamophobia&f=false] and various news sources such as [http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/germany-s-anti-muslim-scene-authorities-debate-surveillance-of-islamophobes-a-788658.html]. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 14:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::Regarding the inclusion: the view of the Verfassungsschutz is definitely more important than the qualification used by a couple of newspapers. No consensus for including. [[User:Estlandia|Miacek and his crime-fighting dog]] [[User talk:Estlandia|(woof!)]] 17:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::Nobody has cited the Verfassungsschutz's view - instead we have WP:OR, based on the fact that they appear not to have said something about something they may very well not have been asked to comment on. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 17:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::Andy's right. Someone or something can be BOTH "critical of Islam" AND "Islamophobic". Even a cursory search brings up a ton of sources which call it "Islamophobic". And if Liftarn is right that they self identify as "Islamophobic"... why are we having this discussion exactly?

::::::::::::::::::Gun Powder Ma's argument boils down to saying "A calls X Y, there fore X is not Z". Of course that's nonsense and a logical fallacy.<span style="color:Blue">[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer ]]</span><span style="color:Orange">[[User talk:Volunteer Marek|Marek]]</span> 18:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::I'd like to throw this out: we have a religion on the behalf of which Iraq was invaded, its citizens murdered, beheaded, tortured, raped and placed in effective tyranny. While blanket mistreatment of Muslims per se isn't anything a reasonable person wants to see, the US Federal government is even as we speak dropping bombs on the people who are trying to establish an Islamic Caliphate in Iraq and the Levant (Syria, Lebanon and Israel). When do we stop pretending that a faith that can inspire and bless such behavior isn't scary? "Islamophobia," while President Obama denies it, is in fact a reasonable view. Unless all Muslims outside ISIS denounce this sort of behavior (and international polls indicate a third of Muslims endorse it), Islamophobia makes sense. [[User:Vfrickey|loupgarous]] ([[User talk:Vfrickey|talk]]) 22:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

{{od}} Fear of Islam does exist, and it is justified considering recent events, but that concept is an argument in favor of it. We also know racism and anti-Semitism exist. As editors the problems arise when citing reliable sources because reliability of a source is also subjective. Supporters of Islam will support POVs that present Islam in a good light. The CAP report is a classic example. Anyone, including organizations who have joined the war against radical Islam and terrorism is automatically labeled Islamophobic, but we're not seeing such discernment on articles about Muslim groups who oppose or do not condone radicalism because it is incorrectly assumed moderate followers of Islam cannot possibly be Islamophobic. Therefore, use of the term and template is clearly discriminatory, and a violation of [[WP:NPOV]]. We all know discrimination exists on both sides, but who are we as editors to make that determination? We are then subjected to relying on high-quality sources, but that just takes us in full circle because what one group might consider high-quality, another group considers unacceptable. Wikipedia slants left so trying to get some of these issues resolved is an issue in itself. You might want to read the following discussion because it brings up a lot of the points brought here. The problem is perpetuated because editors are being allowed to partake in "labeling". [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_110]] <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><b>[[User:Atsme|Atsme]]</b></font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>[[User talk:Atsme|<font color="green">^Consult</font>]] 14:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)