This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Islam in Australia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
Islam in Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This article smacks of bias. The use of the term "right wing" (when many highly conservative Islamic scholars are themselves very socially conservative), gives the game away.
The article is quite underwhelming, it reads a bit like a high school project. I don't know enough about the topic but for those in the know, use Islam in France as a template. Htra0497 22:58, 30th January 2006 (AEST)
Weaselly worded is an understement. This article is openly biased.
The claim of Muslim interaction in Australia before European appears vague, theres no verifiable reference mentioned. Please include some source documentation. There has been European contact with the west coast since 1616 Dirk Hartog this is very commonly mentioned in referrence materials. This is the first time I have seen any claim of pre-european settlement that anything other than the aboriginal dreaming exisited.
As for the separation between church and state, contact by people and establishment of religious organisations are two totally different events . Yet the reading of this claims both are the same. Gnangarra 14:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The group claimed to have had contacted and established of islam in Australia dont even mention any contact with Australia in their article. Gnangarra
Extensive contact between Indigenous Australians and Makassan, Bugis and Bajau traders (from present day Indonesia) is documented by George Chaloupka in his book Journey In Time (1999, Reed Books, Sydney), among other publications. Chaloupka divides the 'contact period' into Makassan and European phases (p.191), in that order. He supports his claims by citing the existing of Makassan artefacts and Aboriginal art illustrating Makassan boats and people in Arnhem Land, and the presence of buildings made from Arnhem Land wood in Ujung Pandang, Sulawesi. Hundreds of words are common to both the Makassan language and the language of Indigenous groups well into Australia's interior. Chaloupka also states that although the Dutch began mapping the West coast of Australia in the 1600s there is no record of landfall.
Whilst this information does not establish Islamic contact as such, it should be noted that Wikipedia itself verifies that Islam has been the dominant religion of both the Makassan, Bugis and Bajau since the 15th century, thus it is probable that those travellers to northern Australia practised their religion whilst here. ellyk 24.9.2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellyk (talk • contribs)
I have copy edited the section on contributions to Australian life to neutralise the POV. There were a number of repetative statements which I condensed to one. Opening statement of the section referred to there being no recognition of contributions, The Ghan rail service from Adeladie to Darwin is name in honour of the Afghan cameleers.
Australian Muslims have asserted their desire to be treated equally and to be free from negative stereotypes. a direct quote from the article to be free from negative stereotypes also requires that negative stereotypes aren't being promoted as was the case in this section. Gnangarra 04:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on the article as it stands (Tuesday 7 March)[edit]
After a mention on WP:AWNB, I came to look at this article. I've cleaned up a bit of the history section, but the article needs some major work. My thoughts are:
Why have the "Personalities" section at all?
The descriptions of where Muslims live needs to be well-referenced if it is to look like anything other than POV (with a negative tone). The places don't match the schools list further down, either
This article suggests that all Muslims in Australia are immigrants. I doubt that is true.
The article does not mention denominations. Does Islam in Australia have denominations (if this is the wrong word, please correct me)? Do they correspond to Islamic denominations elsewhere?
I just reverted an external link added which was to the Queensland Muslime Times - no context given for the link--A Y Arktos 00:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I support the removal of this section as per Scott Davis's recent edit, I find such lists not particularly encyclopaedic anyway.--A Y Arktos 10:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
support the removal of the personalities list, it doesnt contribute to the article in any meaningful way. Also remove the school section it's inaccurate, i've been working on a list of schools in perth and so far there been 3 or 4 islamic schools on that list its only upto G . Suggest the article gets submitted to peer review for a neutral direction and tidy Gnangarra 11:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article paints a way too rosy picture of the muslim presence in Australia. The presence of muslims in Australia has caused riots in recent months...riots! plus muslims have committed gang rape hate crime attacks against whites. Alot of muslims hate australians and alot of australians hate muslims. This is true and this puffy article makes out as if we are the worlds model of easy multiculural blending that nothing went wrong at all...thAT is simply not the case.
An entire section on unrest may be a bit unnecessary, but it certainly is worthy of mention. However, I think you're characterization above is exaggerated. Please back up your statements with sources as Wikipedia is not supposed to have original research. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 13:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You see a single source in this entire islamic propaganda puff piece?
I was referring to plus muslims have committed gang rape hate crime attacks against whites. Alot of muslims hate australians and alot of australians hate muslims. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 13:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask you to differentiate between religion and race. The riots which you refer to were the result of conflict between Arab and Anglo-celtic australians, not anglo-celts and muslims. Also, please sign your comments. {Truth 06 12:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)}[reply]
So, it is not biased to say that all Muslims are evil and wicked like Osama bin Laden and the gang rape case. Is that what you're saying? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.15.122.35 (talk) 07:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The "Unrest" section appears to equate Muslim with Arab/Pakistani/Lebanese. There are no references, which might be reasonable given the links to specific event articles, however, of those three events, Ashfield gang rapes does not mention Muslim/Islam at all, 2005 Cronulla riots says it was ethnically motivated, not religious, and Sydney gang rapes has a big {{POV}} at the top, but presently also says racially motivated, not religious. The examples are all confined to inner southwestern Sydney suburbs, which is not necessarily a representative sample of Australia as a whole. --Scott DavisTalk 06:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Second all of the above. In parts of Perth, Canberra and other cities with sizeable Muslim populations there is pretty much no trouble at all between Muslim and non-Muslim populations. Orderinchaos78 14:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've written a new section, but don't have time to find references at the moment. I'll try later if noone else gets in first. --Scott DavisTalk 09:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have written three paragraphs for Unrest. I have tried to adopt a NPOV, by presenting the a summary of the arguments people have about unrest in the Australian community. It is not my intention to pass judgement on them, and I hope this is reflected in my writing and I remain faithful to the main points people express. Extreme viewpoints (eg: "Australians viscerally hate Muslims"; or, "Muslims marry their cousins and therefore have low IQs") are out. These are not my arguments, but I leave open the idea that it is a mixture of different causes that have come into being. Kransky 15:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - your words are better than mine, but still need the references. I renamed it "Unrest in Sydney" as that seems to be the limit of the unrest discussed. For "Some commentators" etc, an opinion piece from the SMH or similar is probably the right sort of thing. --Scott DavisTalk 23:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very similar to the article though not exactly the same, comparing the style of writing this is appears to be the main source used for writing most of this article. Please specify page numbers of the document for where this was copied "straight out of". Gnangarra 09:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bosnian Muslim immigrants during White Australia Policy[edit]
Speaking of the White Australia Policy, were the Bosnian Muslim immigrants allowed to enter Australia during that priod? Many of them also look Nordic since with their blond hair and blue eyes. --Fantastic4boy 04:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I updated Statistics with 2006 Census results, need links[edit]
Hello eveybody, I updated the figures as the 2006 Census Religoius Affiliation Tables have been released on ABS website on 27th of June, 2007. Can anybody updated the links? Thanks.
Cube 206.182.211.178 10:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The history of Muslims in Australia dates back to the 17th century, well before European contact with the mainland. It is believed Macassan traders from Indonesia had a harmonious relationship with the Indigenous people of northern Australia.
An alternative explanation is that Macassantrepangers from the southwest corner of Sulawesi (formerly Cele bes) visited the coast of northern Australia for hundreds of years to fish for trepang (also known as sea cucumber or "sandfish"), a marine invertebrate prized for its culinary and medicinal values in Chinese markets.
During the voyages the Macassan's left their mark on the people of northern Australia — in language, art, economy and even genetics in the descendants of both Macassan and Indigenous Australian ancestors that are now found on both sides of the Arafura and Banda Seas.
As I've tried to find something that supports this and haven't had much luck, other than an ABC summary of islam that may well be lifting content off wikipedia[1].
Anyone got anything to back this up or is this just fanciful "make the history richer" FUD? NathanLee (talk) 01:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An ongoing relationship between peoples of Sulawesi and Arnhem land was noted by Donald Thompson, and other anthropologists have stated this was probably established before european settlement - the simplest explanation for the available evidence the extract outlines. The trepangers would reside in Australia for a season, in a place remote from indigenous activities, and presumably maintained their religious practices. Reliable sources regard this as probable, but I'm not sure it should be included in this article. Are the nominally christian europeans who 'discovered' Australia an example of Christianity in Australia. cygnis insignis 05:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there's decent references that talk in anything approaching more likely than not: then perhaps it needs to go in. We could have "blue eyed people in Australia" too. At the end of the day it had zero impact on the local religions. As for Christianity in Australia, well from books I've read the minister had to pay for the church out of his own pocket it received so little priority from the colony's leadership. But still, that was a bit more of what I would call "establishing" a religion rather than passing, non permanent influence. NathanLee (talk) 01:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not revert valid sections of articles SatuSuro 02:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly does that mean? I think the lead needs to say what ranking it really is as largest of the smallest religions is completely meaningless. Thoughts anyone? NathanLee (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the talk page header before making further comment - thanks SatuSuro 04:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious to me what it means, but I agree that the wording could be improved. How about:
"After Christianity and Buddhism, Islam is the third largest religion in Australia. According to the...."
Anyway, I think that's a fairly uncontroversial suggestion, so I'll just implement it. Feel free to tweak, etc. --Merbabu (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, always best to link to actual percentages. NathanLee (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the second paragraph under "The 'Muslim problem' in Australia" is biased
As part of the broader issue of women's rights under Islam (particularly in light of the misogynistic statements by Islamic leaders) the perceived or real gender inequality in Islam often been the focal point of criticism in Australia via comparisons to the situation of women in Islamic nations.
Firstly is the purpose of the article to label someone(s) statements to be mysogynistic, or to speculate about a "real gender inequality in Islam".
The point that is trying to be made could be made with much more neutral language, also the references seem dubious.
--Ali kerm (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem starts with the heading. "The Muslim problem" --Merbabu (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The previous heading "The 'Muslim Problem'" was racially charged and utterly unacceptable by any decent standards. I'm surprised a heading such as this could have existed in Wikipedia for so long. I immediately changed it to "Criticism of Islam in Australia." The section still needs work. --Lester 22:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read the referenced articles? They refer to the phrase "the muslim problem". Secondly: Islam is a religion NOT a race. I suggest you perhaps need to do some reading on the definition of "racism" (Although there are ongoing attempts to invoke anti-racial discrimination laws to defend the religion against critics). NathanLee (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction between race and religion (and culture, for that matter) is vital. Thanks. However, it doesn’t change the fact that the heading is a POV nightmare. That a reference may use a biased or POV phrase, this does not allow us to use it here. If the phrase actually is (a) from a notable source and (b) critical to the point being by said notable source, then it *could* behttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islam_in_Australia&action=edit§ion=15 quoted, but I don’t understand how it is. Now that the neutrality of it has been questioned, such significance would have to be firmly established before reinsertion, even as a quotation.
Which article in particular uses the (critical?) phrase "Muslim problem"?
Although the new phrasing offered by Lester is not perfect, it is a vast improvement that had to be made. We should now be discussing how to improve it further still.--Merbabu (talk) 00:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no point creating a section that is nothing but a list of crimes and misdemeanours committed by people of the Islamic faith. Sheik al-Hilali is irrelevant in this section. Yes, he made a sexist remark that got publicity at the time, which is relevant to his own article. But putting that under a list titled "Muslim Problem" is taking it into unacceptable territory.--Lester 01:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the later paragraph stating that Muslims have a low rate of employment is misleading. The fact was taken in isolation from the Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission report. However, the employment difference can be attributed to the extremely young average age of the Muslim community, coupled with the high proportion of refugees who are Muslim. It is also a fact that on average, across the whole Australian population, those who are 19 years of age have an average lower wage than those who are 49 years old. It's not necessary to try to make it a religious issue.--Lester 02:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(indent) The title is taken from the first reference in that paragraph. See the section in it called "The ‘Muslim problem’ and the multiculturalism debate". Criticism is a different concept.. Criticism of Islamic beliefs can exist without there being any sort of problem amongst its followers. E.g. You can have a problem, but no criticism (e.g. there's a problem with my car, yet no one is having a debate or criticising it's lack of engine function). If people said they were Islamic but they had equal employment, integration with the rest of society, equal wage, equal education and equal crime statistics: then there'd be no "muslim problem", but there might still be issues with Islam (e.g. the horrible punishments, un-enlightened views on homosexuality, slavery, misogyny etc.. All of course open to debate, but you get the idea). The section is on problems with the followers of Islam in Australia. The inherent issues with the religion are a separate matter.
Your comments about young age in relation to the employment section are what's known as original research, we'd need some reference that says as such. Statistically as a group they are less likely to be employed, whether that's because they are younger etc doesn't change the fact. What would be good would be a reference showing how per-age-groups compare. E.g. 20-25 year old non vs muslims for employment. But the reference said what is written. I'd like to know how else a report on people with Islam as a religion should be interpreted if not along religious lines. Sheik al-Hilali's comments are very relevant as the articles suggest because of the widespread problems it exposed and the debate which ensued. He was, after all, speaking as the senior Islamic figure in Australia at the time. Just like the Pope or the archbishops speak as senior members of the catholic church. NathanLee (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A new approach. I’ve removed the two separate “contributions” and “criticisms/problems” sub-headings – if one is POV, then so is the other. These are now one section that I’ve entitled “Muslims in contemporary Australian society” (and I've added a small sub-section heading for the historical stuff) – I’m open to suggests for improvement. Ie, my new heading is a bit long, but I think it gets the point across, without containing POV-loaded terms either way. Also, a section for positives and one for negatives is also sloppy and POV. Note, that my heading implies a distinction that Nathan raised between Islam as a religion and Muslims - at least it doesn't imply they are one in the same. Also, I’d suggest removal of the term “Muslim community”. They are not unified anymore than, say, the “Christian community”. Simply “Muslims” or “Muslims in Australia” is fine in my opinion.
I hope people don’t mind me being bold, but maybe this is a good way to short-circuit the issues over the last few days. Any thoughts?
Further, I still think the whole section needs a cleanup – it’s not quite yet a laundry list of criticism and positives added in to achieve “balance”, but it’s close.
--Merbabu (talk) 00:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's a vast improvement.--Lester 00:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to delete the list of crimes and misdemeanours by Muslims. I believe it is racially biased and inflammatory. That includes: Reference to Bali bombings, World Trade Center attack, sheik Hilali's sexist remark, misogynisty by Islamic leaders, womens' hurdles, terrorism & extremism, and the statement about lower employment. I don't dispute the events in isolation, but a list of crimes and misdemeanours by Muslims is problematic, as it vilifies an ethnic minority by attaching religion to crimes and misdemeanours, which doesn't happen to those of Anglo decent.--Lester 02:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No matter it's merits, you know such a deletion will be opposed and, let's say, cause "trouble". I'd tread more carefully. Work on it one at a time.--Merbabu (talk) 02:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Hilaly stuff, inserted here, in which someone from Arbcom is edit waring over, is clearly inappropriate. I don't deny Hilaly made a sexist remark, for which he was expelled from his position. It should be in his article. But this is article has now become a Coatrack to hang a list of misdemeanours committed by Muslims, with the intent influencing public perception about Muslims in Australia. I note that those putting negative content in the Islam articles, for some reason, are not putting any such similar content about crims/sexist remarks in Christianity in Australia and other Christian articles. That says a lot.--Lester 06:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the highest Islamic official in Australia: his comments wield influence and were a very discussed event in the media in Australia. This is not a competition about if something bad is said about Islam, it also needs to be 'balanced' by a similar criticism of Christianity. Christianity's spokesmen in Australia (can and do) make plenty of dumb, ignorant or misogynistic comments: that's completely irrelevant to what the Islamic leaders might say or the Islamic attitudes reported in the news. The sheik I would think would be reasonably assumed to be speaking within the justified structure of his religion (e.g. an authority).
Attempts to remove any of the mention of the problems Islam has in a modern, liberal and democratic society like Australia would be to paint an inaccurate picture of Islam in Australia today. NathanLee (talk) 10:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fact that otherstuffdoesn'texist is not a reason to remove. The material is well referenced, very notable. I don't see the article as a coatrack and concur with NathanLee's comments. Balancing the article is best achieved with the addition of material expressed in a neutral tone. before you get to th Hilaly comments, you do read through information on population statistics, where they come from , history, ... room for improvement I am sure but still a start at trying to give a better perspective. I think also the sub heading (Muslims in contemporary Australian society) is a useful start to hang other points against. Omission of major issues in recent times though won't be helpful. --Matildatalk 20:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Muslim crimes should be included as it is just showing the truth!!!! FREE SPEECH! Also i think Notable muslims should be included in wikipedia, however i dont think there are any. joke! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.166.22.41 (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bit repetitive in relation to say Afghan (Australia) topic. Clean up required became apparent when fixing wikilinks. I will do when I get a chance but if somebody else jumps in - that is fine with me. --Matildatalk 00:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the reference to the Marree mosque being built in 1861, even though this information is on the Australian government DFAT website http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/muslims_in_australia.html. In 1861 there was no European settlement here, John McDouall Stuart had not yet reached the north coast and the telegraph wasn't constructed untill 1870. Other than three Mulim cameleers attached to the Burke and Wills expedition there were no other Muslim cameleers (or camels) in Australia in 1861. The first arrival of Muslim camel drivers in South Australia was in 1866 when 31 men arrived with camels for Thomas Elder's Umberatana Station. Marree wasn't settled untill 1883 (although there was a camp at Herrgott Springs during the construction of the OTL in 1870-2). Rocketfrog 01:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the first sentence under the subheading “19th Century”. Between 1860 and the 1890s many Middle Eastern people came to Australia to work as "Afghan" camel drivers.
As referenced in the page entitled “Afghan (Australia)”, no Middle Eastern state is mentioned in the listed countries. While called Afghans, not all of them were from Afghanistan. "Many were from Balochistan, Kashmir, Sind or the Punjab, which at the time were part of the British Empire and therefore under British colonial rule.” Central Asia is the correct geographical location and Middle Eastern people is an incorrect reference to people from predominately Indian and Indo-Aryan backgrounds. Delly54 (talk) 11:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed these two sentences as there is no evidence anywhere that I have read to support such statements: "The Afghans’ knowledge and expertise with camels was vital for exploration and they were instrumental in guiding the teams through the hot and arid terrain. They have been credited with saving the lives of numerous early European explorers." There are no instances I can recall from the very extensive historical record of saving lives, and nor were were these men used as guides, after all they were strangers too. Mrknightley99 (talk) 03:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)myknightley99Mrknightley99 (talk) 03:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just removed some material which seems to be cherry picking negative material. There doesn't seem much to be gained from adding individual incidents (especially ones which didn't even happen like the speech), or whatever various commentators say. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV apply here. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In relation to the wording: Australia's former Chief of Army, Peter Leahy warned for the need to prepare for a 100 year war against radical Islam to be fought on Australian soil. Muslim leaders condemned this warning. Nick deleted the two sentences saying, "who cares what a retired general thinks: he's not an expert on this topic." Nick-D: Suggest a more adequate justification, or editing, is required - Refer WP:PRESERVE. Sam56mas (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PRESERVE does not apply as the disputed text would never belong in a fully developed article. It's not neutral to represent disputes in such a lopsided way. Binksternet (talk) 01:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Leahy is not an expert on the Australian Islamic community, and probably not an an expert on Australian domestic security, so there does not seem to be a strong reason to include his views here. As the Australian Army does not have a significant domestic security role (beyond providing special forces teams for highly specialised combat operations in the event terrorist incidents that are beyond the capacity of police to handle; a function which has thankfully never been needed) there is no reason to assume that he picked up expertise on the topic through his military career. More generally, the pattern of editing where the article gives weight to someone criticising the Australian Islamic community in strong terms, and ends with a weak 'but Muslims disagreed'-type response violates WP:UNDUE. Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What he said, is what he said. Nick's opinion of what he said, is Nick's opinion of what he said. Suggest rather than 'who cares' the words be reinstated.
From within the Australian Islamic community there are those carrying out jihad (even) involving suicide-bombing and decapitations. There are significant issues for both the Australian Islamic community and the wider Australian community. Could you (1) explain what you mean by, 'ends with a weak 'but Muslims disagreed'-type response' ? or preferably (2) provide a 'stronger' set of words. Sam56mas (talk) 20:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nick: While waiting for your response to the above, there are further issues you might also respond to. While in your opinion Few members of Australia's Muslim community are sympathetic to such views might be true, there are wider factors here. I would contend, the level of concern within the Australian Islamic community regarding these issues > High. The possibility of flow-on effects within the Australian Islamic community > Significant. The level of concern within the Australian community > High. The impact of a possible single Islamic terrorist act within Australia > Very High. Because of the this, the issue-notability here within Wikipedia, 'Islam in Australia' > High. And if I can give you some advice. When considering one of the most significant issues facing the world today [IMHO], best not to simply delete entries to this encyclopaedia with [POV?] comments such as 'who cares?', 'so what' or 'dominate this article'. Sam56mas (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The encyclopedia should inform, not induce fear. It should be impartial, not skewed. Binksternet (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. A small number of Australian Muslims hold extremist views, but the vast majority do not and this article should present things fairly per WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Coverage of terrorism (actual, not theoretical, and cited to sober reliable sources rather than opinion articles and the tabloid media) belongs in the Terrorism in Australia article anyway. Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Islam in Australia article recently went through a number of structural changes, most conducted by me, and major revisions conducted by UserNickD. Sometimes I find that edit summaries are a rather limited medium for summarising the edits, so for the benefit of all, I will describe it in short below:
History - The history section was reorganised into two sections, 1800-1900 and 1900-2010s. I would have kept 2000-present as a third section but most content post-2000 seemed better placed under "contemporary society," or "contemporary issues" (e.g. controversial statements by Islamic preachers, etc.). Also the headers are now longer "beyond 1800," "beyond 1900," keeping it consistent with most articles on WP.
Contemporary society - new section created out of content from history and demographics section. Each subtopic has it's own section, making it easier to find. I believe UserNickD deleted one of these subsections owing to lack of sources.
Demography - This section is now placed after the history and contemporary society sections owing to it being rather technical and covering just a few decades of census data. Section is devided by 3 subtopics, a) population size and origin, b) areas of settlement, c) communities (aboriginal, lebonese, Turkish, etc.). I've put information on origin of population into a chart, and UserNickD deleted a different chart on percentage of adherents to Islam among immigrant groups (not exactly sure why he did so).
I hope these changes will make it easier for readers to learn more about Islam in Australia and for editors to locate topics they wish to expand upon. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I deleted that table as it didn't seem to actually present any useful (or even understandable) information. All of the demographic figures (including the table on the country of origin) can be updated to to the 2011 census (or possibly even later) using statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics website BTW - I'd be happy to handle this over the next few days. Nick-D (talk) 04:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've refined the 1900-present history section by adding a section on the 1990 anti Arab backlash. I've also moved the riots section from the contemporary society to the history section as it is more about specific events than a social trend.
I've added the titles to the notable Aussie Muslims section so readers don't just see a list if names. The question now becomes, is every Australian Muslim with a wiki page a "notable Australian Muslim?"
I've also added a section on Australian Muslims in film and literature. Please add content to them if you can as they currently have just a bit of info. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 12:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"is every Australian Muslim with a wiki page a 'notable Australian Muslim?' "
Anyone with a Wikipedia page is, by definition, notable. However that does not imply that all notable Australian Muslims need to be listed in this article. I suggest that we should:
Link to anyone mentioned in the article (which we should do in any case), if any - ie notable in the context of this article
Delete the entire Notable Australian Muslims section, and instead
I've just removed the "Influence of Islamic preachers" section. This appears to have been an attempt to imply that all Muslim religious leaders say horrible things, illustrated by some examples. The title and lead-in paras were particularly clunky: I don't think that there's such a position as 'preachers'. The content is largely "worst-of" type material rather than an attempt at an assessment of the influence of Islamic religious leaders and the kinds of views they put forward (noting that Islam is a pretty decentralised religion), and the section was hopelessly biased as a result. Some of this material might be usable, but only when placed in context (and preferably discussing broad issues rather than individual incidents given the size and longevity of the Australian Islamic community). Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty drastic edit without consensus. The incidents listed include some of the most notable Islamic religious figures in Australia. Simply deleting the section does more harm than good.I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 03:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to gain consensus before doing something like this - WP:BRD applies, though of course (and it's why I started this discussion). Nick-D (talk) 06:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with its removal the whole section is bias and presented in violation of WP:NPOV there is absolutely no balance presented with the positive actions of the majority of Clerics. Gnangarra 04:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the material is supported by reliable sources, perceived imbalance is not an appropriate justification for removing it. If balancing material is reported in reliable sources, it should be included IAW WP:DUE. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the other issue is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR in a section like this where editors are bringing together various unassociated events to write about another issue. Gnangarra 05:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see SYNTH or OR here on the part of WP (not even "synthesis by juxtaposition", but I've admittedly had trouble recognizing that beast in the past). It seems to me that if there is synth going on, it occurs inside of the cited secondary sources. When the section says, "In some instances various ideas and viewpoints espoused by these preachers have been subject of public or internal debate.", though, I don't see any support for the implication there that there is a public POV supporting Taj El-Din Hilaly, Feiz Mohammed, Samir Abu Hamza and suchlike. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What concerns me is that no effort at all has been made to actually cover the purported topic of the section: it's just a collection of WP:RECENT-type material from news stories obviously presented to push an agenda. We're better of with nothing than this blatantly biased and unprofessional section. Nick-D (talk) 06:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. The section is headed Influence of Islamic preachers, but it doesn't seem to say much about what influence these Islamic preachers have had or where that influence has been apparent. It seems to imply by weight of the examples reported about negative reaction from inside the Islamic community that the influence has been slight. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
that is what makes it WP:SNYTH the taking of unrelated topics to draw a conclusion that isnt covered by the sources. I have no issue with covering the topic even though we dont see it covered for other religions but it needs to be based on published reliable sources. Gnangarra 09:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I note that this section is currently being re-written as 'coverage in the Australian media' (without any discussion here or even edit summaries...). The material still seems to be a project to find examples of recent unsavoury comments and the responses they received rather than a genuine attempt at writing comprehensive or balanced coverage of the topic. What is the value of this material? - it seems to be a WP:COATRACK as currently written (claiming to cover how Islamic leaders are portrayed in the media, but instead focusing on unusual examples). I would have thought that anyone who seriously wants to write about how Australian muslims are treated in the media would start with analytic "big picture" material and aim for a historical perspective (drawing on the literature on this topic) rather than the individual incidents which are being added. Nick-D (talk) 00:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I added league to Hazem El-Masri so it now describes him as a rugby league player. In NSW and Qld there is a difference!
Secondly is it correct to still list David Hicks as a Muslim-Australian? I thought he stopped being an adherent in Cuba. Tigerman2005 (talk) 04:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
rugby league and rugby union are different sports. Writing rugby on its own (at least in Australia) implies rugby union. El-Masri was a very well known league player. Not sure if he ever played union. Tigerman2005 (talk) 03:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hicks (AKA Muhammed Dawood) is a notable Australian whose notability arises from his actions while he was a Muslim and from the consequences of those actions. I think that his absence from the list of "Notable Australian Muslims" in the article is likely to result in repeated questioning about why he is not mentioned. Better, I think, to mention him and to note that he has said that his youthful conversion to Islam was impulsive and that he has since renounced his Islamic faith (details and sources in the David Hicks article. It's not a big deal to me, though. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I guess it just depends on whether the list is intended to represent current Muslims. Your approach seems to make sense to me though. Tigerman2005 (talk) 03:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've just re-removed the material about Peter Costello saying that " Muslim leaders need to condemn terrorism "unequivocally"" in 2006. I really don't see the relevance of this - it's an example of WP:NOTNEWS material this article should be avoiding, especially as Costello didn't have responsibility for the issue in his portfolio or any particular expertise on the matter. There's a broader issue here of the kind of comments which have been made and the responses they received which is probably worth including in the article, but covering this on a comment-by-comment basis seems over the top and unnecessary. Nick-D (talk) 09:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I propose to merge the contents of the Islam in Norfolk Island article into this article. There simply isn't enough to say about Islam on Norfolk Island for a full-blown article; I doubt the article would ever be able to be expanded beyond one or two paragraphs. — This, that and the other (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge I agree with your reasoning. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support also. Go for it! wia (talk) 03:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks for your support. Feel free to edit the new content to make it fit in better. — This, that and the other (talk) 05:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's something wrong with this addition] to the article. I says there are eight women on the "full list of Aussie jihadis". The ref says 53 men, 8 women (total 61) - but the actual list of names at the end of the article only has 44 entries on it. So the context of "8 women" does not appear to be the same as the "full list" of 44 people. Some clarification may be required. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just did a serious revamp of the article as it was in a seriously bad state with regards to WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS. DailyMail, Breitbart, opinion pieces galore. Lots of little obscure news pieces cluttering what is supposed to be an encyclopaedic article. Also had to remove a lot of stuff added recently as it was basically copied and pasted straight from the sources. There are still a lot of them left, I'm sure, but I got rid of the ones I found along the way. If a piece is to be reinserted, please check it against the source and rephrase appropriately. Havi4 (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've just removed this section as it was a real mess. The "within Islam" sub-section was highly dubious given that its referring to disagreements between individuals and organisations, and not Muslims criticising their own religion. The "From outside Islam" was a cherry-picked collection of recent and fairly random comments from individuals, most of whom seemed to not actually be "criticising" Islam per-se, but expressing views on the current state of the religious community. Similar stuff is scattered through the article as well. Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Islam in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified one external link on Islam in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 4 external links on Islam in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 7 external links on Islam in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 2 external links on Islam in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 7 external links on Islam in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Islam is not the second highest religion in Australia. Next time try using actual facts from the abs website instead of making up random bs. Loser 49.183.158.189 (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=logo}
Done, thanks for your support. Feel free to edit the new content to make it fit in better. — This, that and the other (talk) 05:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)