Template talk:Islamophobia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Quran desecration

Most cases of Quran desecration occur in Islamic countries. Muslim zealots take liberal Muslims or members of non-Muslim minorities to court (around one thousand cases have reportedly been lodged since 1988 in Pakistan alone [1]) or use alleged desecrations as a pretext for riots, pogroms and lynchings. It would be cynical to label the victims of, say, the 2009 Gojra riots as 'islamophobic'. Ankimai (talk) 13:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Like I noted at the template for discussion page, Quran desecration is a general topic which is related to Islamophobia (where specific incidents like the 2009 Gojra riots don't meet the same reasoning for the template). Quran desecration doesn't just happen in Islamic countries. Incidents like Dove World Quran-burning controversy would fit this template fully, and so does Quran descration. — Moe ε 21:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Blogs

As islamophobia is mostly spread via blogs I think it would be a good idea to include them as well. Ofcourse providing they are mentioned as such in reliable sources. // Liftarn (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Blogs are deprecated sources per WP:BLOG, end of, full stop. I am removing them again. If you reinstate them without discussion or justification we will go to WP:RSN where the community can consider whether you have a case or, as I suspect, pushing a POV against policy. Leaky Caldron 13:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Doh! It's articles about islamophobic blogs. Not liks to the blogs themselves. As you obviously have failed to give a valid reason I will reinstate them. I will however exclude Fjordman since that is also a person and it might be a BLP issue with that. // Liftarn (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I know perfectly well that they are articles about blogs. That doesn't make them any more appropriate for inclusion. We'll see what WP:RSN has to say - if the template survives in its current form - which looks unlikely. Leaky Caldron 23:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so you do admit you have no valid argument to delete them yet you do it anyway? Well... // Liftarn (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

When you put the blogs back in on 2 Jan 2012, you added Fjordman, even though you agreed not to. I have deleted it.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

My bad. As it's both a blog and a person Fjordman should not be included on BLP reasons. // Liftarn (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Little Green Footballs

I was asked to explain my removal of Little Green Footballs. I think it's enough to read the lead and infobox of the article to understand that the blog is no longer anti-Islam, but rather anti-anti-Islam as I wrote in my edit summary. —Filippusson (t.) 21:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

LGF is the origin of modern islamophobia, but as you say thet has now been toned down. If it should be included is thus no clear cut case. // Liftarn (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It hasn't been "toned down", it has been utterly eradicated. You only have to click at the website to see perfectly well that its sole activity today is to be some sort of "Islamophobe Watch" (counter to Jihad Watch). Charles Johnson (the blog author) has returned to his leftist anti-right past. —Filippusson (t.) 22:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Reading the blog would be OR, but it would be interesting to see whe the switch took place. // Liftarn (talk)

Ban on Sharia Law

I am puzzled by the deletion of the article on Ban on sharia law from the template. The deleting editor claimed [2] "Removed Ban on sharia law as that don't appear to have anything to do with islamophobia." With the greatest respect, I think this view is mistaken. In my opinion bans on Sharia Law are always based on prejudice and bigotry.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The article makes no mention of islamophobia. Find some relible source for it first. // Liftarn (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

A problem is that sites like Sharia Awareness Action Network are not reliable sources. However I have tried to do something.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, extremist sites can only be used to source their own views. // Liftarn (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Title

There have been objection to "Islamophobia" as well as to "Anti-Muslim sentiment". In my view, "opposition to Islam" is equally inappropriate, as it somehow would imply that the groups included in this template were a somehow legitimate opposition. I suggest to rename the template to "Anti-islamic positions".  Cs32en Talk to me  02:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This issue was discussed in the deletion discussion. I prefer "Anti-Islamic sentiment" as the title for this template; I am content that there should be an article called "Islamophobia", because this is something people might want to look up.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree because a) islamophobia (even is semantic incorrect) is the most accepted term and b) it is like renaming antisemitism to "Anti-Judaism positions". Try that rename first and then come back here. // Liftarn (talk)

ADL

It is correct that the ADL on some occasions has criticized the most extreme Islamophobic groups and persons. But it doesn't appear to me that the ADL uses the term Islamophobia. And they were certainly not founded to oppose Islamophobia. It is not self-evident that they should be included among the "opposers" of Islamophobia in this template. For example, the Council on American–Islamic Relations has accused the ADL of "hate-filled Islamophobic rhetoric"[3]. When I search for ADL and Islamophobia, I don't really find any examples of the ADL actively opposing Islamophobia, using that term, but I find examples of others criticizing the ADL of being Islamophobic. The ADL's website say they oppose Anti-Semitism, but it doesn't say they oppose Islamophobia. Unless sources can be found that demonstrate that opposing Islamophobia is a significant goal of the organisation, it isn't appropriate to include it among the opposers in this template on Islamophobia. JonFlaune (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Eurabia

Why does someone keep deleting Eurabia from this template?--Toddy1 (talk) 11:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Where is the proof that this falls (per consensus of reputable sources) under Islamophobia? It has not been presented so far.Estlandia (dialogue) 11:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

So if the other party to your edit war can provide reliable sources that it is Islamophobic, you will be content? I assume that you want the article on Eurabia to contain the citations, etc.?--Toddy1 (talk) 11:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

the reliable sources are present at the eurabia-page.-- altetendekrabbe  11:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The section Eurabia#Critical comment would seem to be the section in question. So what is the problem with including Eurabia in this template?--Toddy1 (talk) 11:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

there is no problem at all. it should be included. the problem is pov-pushing editors like estlandia.-- altetendekrabbe  12:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to be brusque, but what is this nonsense? There are several academic sources in the Eurabia article that expressly label the Eurabia fantasies islamophobic. If anything falls under this template, Eurabia certainly does. --benjamil (talk) 12:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Template has to be improved

This template is the only anti-religious sentiment template besides template:antisemitism. We need pretty good reasoning for it to exist. The long history of anti-semitism may explain why that template is a lot better. A few problems I see with this template:

1. The name Islamophobia is not fully scientific, as the Islamophobia explains there is much criticism of it, sort of trying to brand all criticism of a religion (in this context Islam) as -phobic. Islamofascism neither is a scientific name. Neutral, scientific names would be anti-Islamic sentiment and Authoritarianism and Islam. You don't make a template called Islamofascism and add extremeist things in it.
2. The section organizations in this template is flawed. None of the links even have the template, and I agree they even shouldn't. Adding the Westboro Church for example is a bit ridiculous since they're opposed to half of the things in the world. As far as I know, their main opposition is directed to homosexuality.
3. Because the term is not entirely scientific, it is sort of a libel to link Stop Islamization of America here. Indeed, some commentators call it anti-Muslim, but Wikipedia does not label people with such templates. WP:TERRORIST means that even Osama bin Laden is not labeled with any terrorism template or called such.

So the only pros of this template are that it links some anti-Islamic things Utöya 2011, Counterjihad, Jihad Watch and Politically Incorrect. Does it warrant a whole template? Questionable. The reason why the antisemitism template prospers is because there is a lot of content to it. This Islamophobia is on par with, if someone created Template:Christophobia and added Bible burning, some attacks on Christians like 2009 Gojra riots or church burnings in Norway, Soviet anti-Orthodox Church measures and similar for example. Simply, it makes a bad template. --Pudeo' 13:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

There was a discussion last December whether to keep the template. Let's not have it again.

In the discussion, it was suggested that the template could be renamed to something like Template:Opposition to Islam or Template:Anti-Islamic sentiment. I prefer the latter. But I do not think that my view is widely supported.

In defence of the current name, the world does use the term "Islamophobia". A search of Google books[4] reveals 437 results. (There is a falsely larger number if you merely look at the first page.) Though "anti-islamic sentiment" produces 485 results.[5]--Toddy1 (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Would you like to rename the antisemitism template to "Opposition to Judaism" or "Anti-Judaism sentiment"? I don't think so. The name "islamophobia" may be quite recent, but the ideas are as old as antisemitism. // Liftarn (talk)

Islamophobia is a pseudomedical term, -phobia indicating claimed anxiety disorder. While it is acceptable to describe some of Luther's work as antisemitic for example, it is a completely different thing to label someone Islamophobic here don't you think? The term antisemitism has a far longer history dating to 19th Century, Islamophobia is early 90s with very limited use back then. You should also read: Islamophobia#Criticism. They're not comparable terms by any means. I think you're pretty wrong with the "ideas are old as antisemitism". Anti-Muslim sentiment didn't really exist in Europe: the 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar consiting of Muslims was the first non-Germanic SS division and Hitler was eager to cooperate with them – but that's getting off topic.

Toddy1, I agree with the naming. But since the deletion discussion ended as no concensus it may mean it will be voted for again especially if it's not improved. As it stands, I repeat, it lacks quality and proper fully relevant content like template:antisemitism has. But hey, I suggest everyone clicks each of the articles in this template from "Organizations" and see if they link back and how relevant they are. --Pudeo' 12:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not entirely happy with the word "Islamophobia". Unlike "antisemitism", the word does not have much of a pedigree. However, the sentiments it describes have a very long pedigree - try reading The Song of Roland, where muslims are described as worshiping Satan and hating God. Renaissance Spain was both anti-islamic and anti-semitic. There is evidence of anti-islamic feeling in the newspapers of late 19th Century England with neologisms such as "bashibazookery".--Toddy1 (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, no surprise that Christians consider/considered Muslims infidels or heretics – I wasn't arguing for that. By the way, Google Scholar search with terms like Islamophobia+neologism give some interesting results. Even the book Islamophobia by Christopher Allen discusses on five chapters about it neologistic idea, and even in one chapter it's lack of credibility. It's definitely not a fully scientifically verifiable, neutral term. This template breaches WP:SYNTH in that it adds content to an template based on one source. One source can say that X is Islamophobic, one can state it's not. Thus, this template is only showing the viewpoint of Islamophobia based on one source and one view, making it the default presumption. --Pudeo' 22:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I must admit that I acted on this thread without really participating.

1) when it comes to the usage of "islamophobia", I was involved in a discussion about that on the Islamophobia talk page a while ago, and argued that islamophobia is indeed the most commonly used term in Wikipedia's preferred sources. That archive also contains some relevant discussion concerning the appropriateness of the construction of the term.

2) I agree that the template should be improved, but I'm sadly not up to speed when it comes to making or editing templates. As the anti-semitism template is discussed and pointed out as a good example, I believe that we should attempt to model the islamophobia template on that. Obviously, it wouldn't become as comprehensive, but an attempt to do this would make it clearer whether it has merit or not (I believe it has). I believe that Wikipedia's coverage of the history of anti-islamic sentiments is quite weak, overall, and I appreciate Toddy1's comments above.

3) Since including a specific event, form of defamation etc. is essentially a yes-or-no question, and the term is rather controversial (I've witnessed more edit wars over using it than I can count on my fingers), it would be very useful if we could establish some criteria that go beyond the WP:VERIFY demand of one source to include the word in an article (or in the case of WP:BLP, arguably three), for when it is definitely acceptable to include the template. I don't necessarily believe that the criteria should be applied in an absolute manner, but more something like a "soft threshold", on either side of which there should be very good reasons to dispute its use or lack thereof. From the top of my mind, I'd propose something like (I would certainly appreciate a thorough discussion, or a link to a WP page where this or a similar matter has already been discussed):

The word has been used to describe the phenomenon, event or institution:

• In at least 3 sources qualifying as WP:SCHOLARSHIP, or
• By at least 3 government institutions (parliaments or chambers thereof) or representatives (foreign ministers) from non-Islamic countries, and/or international bodies (UN, NATO, EU etc.) which have states as their main members (or their official spokespersons) which do not have a majority of their members in the Islamic world, or
• By at least 3 major international organisations, with a global scope, (Red Cross, Medicins sans frontieres, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch etc.) which are widely known for their impartiality, or
• By at least 5 national organisations or institutions of any kind outside the Islamic world.
• By at least 10 government institutions (parliaments or chambers thereof) or representatives (foreign ministers) of different Islamic countries or 20 different united national Islamic organisations (i.e. those that are generally accepted as speaking on behalf of the Muslim congregations in a country).

The next-to-last point is probably the most difficult to find a good approach to, and it might possibly be best to leave it out, as I can see potential for conflict, but I nonetheless include it to put it up for discussion. I can certainly think of examples where it would be quite possible to argue where the point would be a no-brainer, for instance if the Anglican Church, The Council of German Lutheran Churches, The International Ecumenical Dialogue Association (I just made that up), the United Buddhist League of Japan (that too) and the ADL all labeled something as islamophobic, but I can also think of examples where it might not be. The high demand from Islamic sources might seem unfair, as they may in a lot of cases be relevant, and I do believe that all-Jewish sources are generally sufficient to include the anti-semitism template, but it is a much less controversial topic.

Cheers, benjamil (talk) 12:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Would you like to apply the same (with a religion swap) requirements for the antisemitism template? // Liftarn (talk)

No, definitely not. I touch upon the answer to that in the last sentence. I'm perfectly aware that the standards will by no means be comparable. What I'm trying to do here is to propose something that makes a case-by-case-discussion avoidable at least in the most obvious cases of islamophobia, not to propose a common threshold for pathological ethnoreligious bigotry. Equal standards is a good ideal, but in a pragmatic perspective, hardly attainable. benjamil (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

If you don't have equal standards you instead have double standards. // Liftarn (talk)

Very simply put: Yes. Do you think the community is going to accept anything else? I would love a universal set of guidelines, but I don't think Wikipedia will be able to make one in a million years, so I'll settle for something workable for now. benjamil (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

If you by "the community" refers to a small clique of bigots, no. If you refer to wikipedians in general then yes. My suggestion would be to use the guidlines we already have. Use reliable sources and follow BLP. // Liftarn (talk)

Antisemitism is not Islamophobia, the Antisemitism template mostly deals with issues from the early 20th Century – so it's likely the references for those are very different, differently established and researched. Islamophobia on the other hand is modern issue, with developments happening every year and playing a role in politics. So you see, current human rights reports of Islamophobia by Amnesty for example is quite a different case than a historian presenting anti-seminism in Europe from the 1920s. I'm not arguing for "double standards", but I'm pointing out that they're not exactly comparable issues either. Also, don't underestimate small cliques of bigots: the English Wikipedia has over 17 million registered users internationally, with all kinds of POVs and ideologies ever imagineable. It's just a matter which articles or disputes get attention. For an Islam-related Wikipedia dispute with a huge community participation, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images. --Pudeo' 10:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Norway Attacks

I wouldn't describe the 2011 Norway Attacks are a Islamaphobic incident as the target was not Muslims but the Labour Party (Norway) so therefore I think it should be removed from the template, discuss.C. 22468 Talk to me 22:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The terrorist's motive was to promote a vitriolic compendium of islamophobia and scare Norway to "confront Islam". Even though the Labour party was the "tactical target" and if only 20-30% of the actual victims were Muslim, this "strategic" context is essential.benjamil ^talk/_edits 05:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Jihad Watch?

Why is this here. It is incredibly debatable to have this here. It is not fact that this website is islamaphobic so it should not be here. This website is certainly anti Islam but it is not factually anti Muslim. Putting this in the info box implies that this website is factually against musllims. 88.104.212.172 (talk) 08:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

We have reliable sources saying it's not only just islamophobic but described as "the notoriously Islamophobic website, Jihadwatch"[6] // Liftarn (talk)

Reliable sources they may be but they are still just opinions and may not be correct. Regardless the template should be deleted. Considering like half the info is only here because some sources have dubiously described them as "islamaphobic" (an often pretty meaningless word) it really seems to have little use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.212.172 (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Also the SIOA is described as Anti Islam not Anti Muslim, so it should be removed as it is not factually Islamophobic which is what having it in this box implies. Also the EDL may have many Islamaphobic members but the organisation itself is not Islamophobic so it should not be presented as factually being against muslims and be removed. Islamaphobia is a prejudice against, hatred or irrational fear of Muslims not Islam. These organistions aims are not against all Muslims. 88.104.212.172 (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Please consult the sources in the respective articles. If you find them to be pay-walled articles, send me an e-mail and we'll see what we can do.benjamil ^talk/_edits 19:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Also Jihad Watch has been quoted by numerous publications like the new york times and the daily mail. Just because some guardian article claims it is islamaphobic without any evidence or detail(he just says without any further details) does not mean it is. Guardian articles have previously claimed Bush or Blair are war criminals or murderers and that Hamas is not a terrorist group but that does not mean there right and that these claims should be added on wikepedia as fact. Some reliable sources may say this website is islamaphobic but other reliable sources will quote it and support it. Reliable sources contradict each others opinions on this. Jihad watch is not factually against muslims, so it should not be factually claimed as islamaphobic. 88.104.212.172 (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we have sources saying Bush or Blair are not war criminals nor murderers and that Hamas is a terrorist group. I suggest to try to find sources for your claims instead. // Liftarn (talk)

Exactly my point, there will be reliable sources saying these groups are not islamaphobic. If not that, many newspapers will quote or use info from these sites because they consider them reliable and not islamaphobic. You misunderstood my point. I am not saying Bush or Blair are war criminals or murderers and that Hamas is not a terrorist group, I am saying guardian articles have said this, but that does not they are fact and should be added on wiki as you implied because you stated that your proof that jihad watch was islamaphobic was because some guardian article just stated it without any further detail. With that logic it is proof that the for instance bush is a war criminal because some guardian article has said so. Jihad Watch is not factually islamaphobic. It has been accused of it though and that is important info but this info should presented as claims and accusations because that is precisely what they are. 88.104.212.172 (talk) 09:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I believed that the extensive body of academic sources characterising Jihad Watch as Islamophobic was already in use in the article, but I saw that it was not. I have proceeded to add it. I believe there is now a quite firm foundation for the inclusion of the blog in this template. Cheers, benjamil ^talk/_edits 12:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not that bothered with this any way but I still think by placing this in the islamaphobia section is wrong as it factually implies this blog is islamaphobic. 88.104.212.172 (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

And you say it isn't? // Liftarn (talk)

Image

File:Flag of Eurabia.svg

This image does not invoke the idea of encyclopedic coverage about Islamophobia. The image itself appears to transport an anti-Islamic sentiment. Seriously, a random user-created image of a mosque that's circled and struck?

Even the image description says: "Symbol against the construction of a Mosque." -- Which is exactly how it comes across: As being directed against Islam, rather than being a widespread or even plausible symbol for Islamophobia itself.

All of which begs the question: What exactly is the purpose of this image in this template? To add some nice color to the box? Images are not to be used gratuitously, and this one signifies nothing even remotely useful. In contrast to the Judenstern used in Template:Antisemitism, it also isn't a widely recognizable image. And the Judenstern has been culturally re-appropriated by people concerned about antisemitism. It is now much more a symbol of the struggle against antisemitism (which includes education through neutral encyclopedic coverage...) than of antisemitism itself.

Antisemites would never carry a banner with the Judenstern on it. Would Islamophobes carry a banner with File:No-mosque.svg printed on it? Probably yes. Some probably have.

The image is so bad in taste, we might as well use File:Flag of Eurabia.svg. My suggestion is to remove the image as (a) none is required and images are not to be used gratuitously and (b) File:No-mosque.svg in particular is absurdly offensive for the reasons laid out above. --195.14.220.226 (talk) 07:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

There may be an additional (copyright?) problem. File:No-mosque.svg, the one with the mosque crossed-out, is quite similar to the one used by the German Bürgerbewegung Pro NRW, cf. here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The picture in the linked article is from 2012. The image created on commons is from 2009. You'll have to show that a. another group has a copyright to this or a substantially similar image, and b. that copyright precedes the creation on commons. nableezy - 19:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is one from 2008, predating File:No-mosque.svg. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

You missed half of that. nableezy - 23:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Just like I suspected. That type of image is in active use by Islamophobes. I believe that is much worse than any potential copyright concerns. Completely unacceptable to have it in the template. --87.79.214.131 (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)?

Because the image is actively used by the topic of template the image is unacceptable? You want to explain that one to me? nableezy - 19:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can take your question at face value. Because the image is actively used by the topic of template the image is unacceptable? -- To re-parse that in straightforward and NPOV: Because the image is actively used by Islamophobes the image is unacceptable? -- Um... Why, yes, obviously. It's islamophobic imagery. It does not denote Islamophobia as a topic. Do you also believe we should replace the Judenstern in the antisemitism template with e.g. a Star of David circled and crossed? Or maybe with an antisemitic Nazi propaganda cartoon, if we're to use imagery employed by the respective hate group? Sorry if this comes across as curt, but I'm hardpressed to believe that you're even being serious here. --87.79.214.131 (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The image is used to illustrate Islamophobia. That it is used by Islamophobes is a reason to use it. Just like Ku Klux Klan article's infobox is illustrated by a burning cross. nableezy - 23:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Like the Judenstern symbol, the KKK's burning cross is very well-known and already widely associated with the KKK. It's a Hollywood fixture! The crossed Mosque does not "illustrate" Islamophobia, it is Islamophobia. And if you condone it, there is only one conclusion to draw from that. Nah, that image is completely unacceptable and must go. --87.79.111.177 (talk) 06:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Lol. And that conclusion is? Back to the point, you dont get to decide on your own what is or is not acceptable. And I cant stop laughing at the line The crossed Mosque does not "illustrate" Islamophobia, it is Islamophobia. Let's try to see if we can get some reason in to this argument. You say it is Islamophobia. Not quite, it is an Islamophobic image. That is, it is a visual representation of Islamophobia. Islamophobia is the subject of the template. The template should include a visual representation of its subject. Well, what do we have here?!? By George! It's a visual representation of the subject of template! nableezy - 15:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

you dont get to decide on your own what is or is not acceptable. -- Neither do you, buddy. I have provided a good reasoning. You have provided borderline bickering.

As to the rest of your pointless snark: Like I pointed out, if we're going to use imagery used by the hategroup in question, we should definitely replace the Judenstern in {{antisemitism}} with some antisemitic Nazi propaganda image.

OK, so your reality-proof opinion has been heard. You have failed to provide anything even remotely resembling a reasoning, nor a refutation of any of my points. How about we let other people add their input now, m-kay? --87.79.133.18 (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

How about you try responding to the reasoning given, because it was a reasoning and a a refutation of any of [your] points. An image used by Islamohphobes to show their Islamophobia is by definition an illustrative image of Islamophobia. And you should probably read the first sentences of Yellow badge before you continue pontificating on how using an image illustrative of the hategroup (sic) in question is a BadThing™. nableezy - 18:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Just stop it. You are alone with your opinion facing two other people, and you have the audacity to just revert back to the image, without having even attempted to present a reasoning. --87.78.138.251 (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

One user who removed the image has said exactly zero words in support of such an edit, either here or in his edit summary. I invite Liftarn to explain his edit here to see if we can establish WP:CONSENSUS for an edit. I have repeatedly provided reasoning, reasoning that is either over your head or you just lack the capability to provide a lucid, intelligible response to it. The image is illustrative of Islamophobia, so the image illustrates the Islamophobia template. You have yet to respond to this point. Please do. nableezy - 19:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• If this is a proposal to use this "flag of Eurabia" instead, I object. The image itself is something of a neologism (neologimage?), and in the template, it's esoteric enough to be misleading. The obvious conclusion would be that it was some sort of flag that signaled opposition to Islam. --BDD (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Wha?! I hope not too many people misread my post like that. I should have made myself clearer. I was trying to say that with an image as unsuitable as the current one we might as well be using the Eurabia flag. My point was that both images are similarly unacceptable. (If anyone ever seriously suggests putting the Eurabia flag in there, the first admin at the scene should laugh all the way to the block button.) --87.79.214.131 (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Chalk it up to the ambiguities of online communication. "Might as well" can be used sarcastically, but I didn't think you were doing so. My apologies to the straw man I just beat on. --BDD (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

And now for something completely different

Since the box generated by this template is rather large and cumbersome, it should really be a bottom-of-the-page template, and not attempt to be a side template... AnonMoos (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

With the image removed (see above) it is not as large. // Liftarn (talk)

I agree with putting this at the bottom of the page. The discussion of the image is interesting (Dude with a bomb in his turban better describes the issue while also being more well known) but the template being used almost as an infobox is a good enough reason to look at alternatives to how navigational links are provided to the reader. Examples of concern include: Eurabia and Turban effect. Articles where it is just weird include Persecution of Muslims. I understand that the subjects listed above are within the realm of Islamaphobia but this template on the side is being used to either define subjects or make a point in articles. At a quick glance, David Horowitz Freedom Center is the only article I see that uses it in an intuitive and proper manner. Cptnono (talk) 07:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)