Talk:Islamophobia

"So there ya have it..." 'Islamophobia' is now officially an IDEOLOGY - as defined by Wikipedia

This article is still pure beyond ridicule, for blatant POV pushing propaganda intended mainly to display what POVs and opinions rule the roost on this websie without even a pretense of "neutrality".

So now we have a section titled "Links to other ideologies". Do you get the significance of that? Even though it is missing from the intro sentence (but should certainly be there for consistency) Islamophobia may now therefore be defined as an official IDEOLOGY - showing once again that Wikipedia has singlehandedly run further with the ball, and is closer to making a touchdown, than any other player.

However, this must be the first IDEOLOGY in the world that is not self-defined with any actual 'adherents' to speak for it, but rather one that is externally defined - by those who exhibit the requisite wisdom above all other fellow mankind to be privileged enough to write these pieces - in other words, the world's first solely WIKIPEDIA-DEFINED IDEOLOGY. Good going, guys! What's next? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the significance lies in the first sentence; "Recent scholarship considers Islamophobia as a form of racism". Imagine that, an encyclopedia citing scholarly sources. What is the world coming to? Tarc (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, these scholars are clearly as impartial as the driven snow, devoid of any point-of view on the matter, and nobody must question their absolute impartiality either. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

At any rate, since we have now thereby established that Islamophobia IS indeed an "ideology", (we should pat ourselves on the back for our collective feat here) then for clarity sake may we please add to the lede sentence in the intro, "Islamophobia is an ideology, that..." ? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

We are not going to violate WP:POINT and disrupt Wikipedia in response to your sarcasm. Binksternet (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

But why wait until halfway down the page to suddenly start considering it an ideology? If that's what it is, surely it would be more consistent and straightforward to state this up front, in the definition, wouldn't it? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

We understand your frustration for being outvoted in the deletion poll earlier. Nevertheless, this may be the wrong outlet for your emotional reactions Til Eulenspiegel. --84.215.86.241 (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Now that response reveals an utter lack of logic on your part, because instead of even addressing my actual argument at face value (which may be too difficult for you), you are attempting to divine what my unspoken motives may be. But not being a psychic of course, you are dead wrong. Back on topic, the article continues to define "Islamophobia" as if it were some clinical malady at the beginning of the article, then halfway down the page, once it has become convenient, springs the sudden revelation that no, "Islamophobia" is now an IDEOLOGY, even though it lacks the intellectual honesty to state this consistently at the top. Just one of the reasons why this article is a showcase of one of wikipedia's biggest laughingstocks, fiercely protected by a dedicated core of guardian editors who only see their own point of view. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem here, unless something has been deleted. Both places ideology is mentioned, it is said that interpreting Islam as (primarily? solely?) a political ideology is Islamophobic. I personally don't have an opinion on that one, but that's all I see in the text. CarolMooreDC 18:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Please try to comprehend what that says. Interpreting Islam as an ideology is not at all the same thing as interpreting Islamophobia as an ideology, which the intro says nothing whatsoever about. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

"Islamophobia" is just a slur. "Anti-islamic sentiment" or "criticism of Islam" or "opposition to Muslim immigration" might be ideologies, and might be so labelled by opponents, but "Islamophobia" is just the transparent attempt to avoid debate by implying that your opponent has a medical condition, or a psychological problem. It cannot be a "phobia" and an ideology at the same time. If you have decided you want to smear a political view you don't like by implying it is a "phobia", you cannot then go on and call it an "ideology". A "phobia" is irrational, an "ideology" is a rational, intellectual construct even if it may or may not be an unsavoury one. THis article should be about the term itself, without suggesting that there is an identifiable concept of "Islamophobia" behind the name-calling. --dab (𒁳) 15:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Not all ideologies are rational. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The main problem I see is that the majority of the article describes a term synonymous with Anti-Arabism. In the definition, it is described as "prejudice against, hatred towards, or irrational fear of Muslims." On a fundamental level, the first two descriptors of the term are in line with Anti-Arabism. It is only by adding irrational fear that the term takes its own identity, and yet throughout its usage in the article, there is virtually no discussion of the term in psychological contexts. In the Links to other idelolgies section we see comparisons to racism, but that still fails to differentiate islamophobia and anti-Arabism, as other terms such as antisemitism does not portend the existence of a phobia or psychological disability. Regardless of the expanse of its usage, there are clear aspects of the term that make it a Neologism. With no definitive criteria used in classification, each instance of usage appears to discuss a different topic. Mrathel (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The majority of Muslims aren't Arabs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Good point, but then what is the difference between Islamophobia and Criticism of Islam, or Anti-Islamic? My main argument remains in tact; despite its wide-spread usage, the article fails to establish the validity of the claim that individuals are exhibiting phobias rather than mere prejudices. Mrathel (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The article does not claim that Islamophobia is a 'phobia' in the medical sense. Instead, it considers the usages of the term as used e.g. in academia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I am confused as to what the article is about, if that is the case. Regardless of the POV pushing in recent edits, the lead should probably explain that it is a Neologism, or a new and evolving word that is used in a variety of ways. For some of the cited sources the term offers umbrella coverage for all prejudicial actions and speech against Islam. For others, it requires an actual fear. Personally, I am not convinced that the term is accurate enough to house the information that would be better placed under an article on "Anti-Islam" or "Anti-Muslim," terms which redirect here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrathel (talk • contribs) 17:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The article goes into the origins of the term in some depth. As for asserting that it 'is a neologism' in the lede, that seems questionable (how old does a word have to be to cease being one?), and rather unnecessary - the word is in frequent use in mainstream media publications, and is likely familiar to most readers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

In what depth does the article explain the origin of the term? I see a phrase whereby it explains that it is a neologism whereby someone put phobia on the end of Islamo, but after that I see nothing but a series of usages. How old does a term have to be to stop being a neologism? From a cursory glace I see the earliest usage given here to be around 1996; while to the average WP editor that may seem like ancient history, it is quite possible that a standard definition of the term has failed to arise in such a time frame. As for my main concern that the article redirects from terms that are far more suitable for the majority of the content, I am curious as to the thoughts of other editors. Mrathel (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Arabism

Discrimination against Muslims is commonly confused with discrimination against members of certain ethnic and/or racial groups, mainly Arabs. For this reason, a note on the distinction, linking to the anti-Arabism article, was introduced on top of the lead section, but later removed. Why should it not be restored? EIN (talk) 07:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Good question, I agree it should be restored 162.123.19.235 (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Why is is "mainly Arabs"? Anti-Turkism is just as passionate. And some other "anti-"s . Anyway, in wikipedia, disambiguation notes are to navigate between articles with same or similar titles, not between any different things which people may confuse, like, wasps and bees. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

There was a time, before the Dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, when “Turk” was used interchangeably with “Muslim” or “Mohammedan;” no longer so. That privilege has now shifted to “Arab.” That is not entirely groundless: after all, Islam came out of Arabia and, as a result of multiple Arab-Muslim conquests under the expansionist foreign policy of the Caliphate, the Muslim world today largely coincides with the Arab-speaking world.

Discrimination against Muslims is most commonly confused with discrimination targeting all the ethnic groups of the Greater Middle East, all of whom—not only Arabs, but Turks, Persians and the rest—clueless people, as ignorantly as is typical of them, lump under the title “Arab.” Hence, anti-Arabism. To the best of my knowledge, there is no word in the English language signifying racism against Middle Easterners as a whole. Morphologically, the closest thing to that would be “anti-Semitism,” but of course, in effect, it only refers to one Middle Eastern ethnicity.

Anyway, read this: “{{About}} is a commonly used hatnote on Wikipedia, and so should be placed at the top of an article, linking the reader to articles with similar titles or concepts that they may have been seeking instead” (or read more here). EIN (talk) 10:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

"or concepts" is a vague permission. Polonophobia is also a very similar concept. There is a "see also" section to list whatever you think similar, in quantities unlimited. Hatnotes clutter the top of the page and must be used sparingly. As for what is confused with what, I am afraid this is your opinion. I places where we have islamophobia, it is islamophobia and not anti-arabism. I don't think an islamophobe can tell arab from an iranian. I places where some muslims hate other muslims (e.g. Arabs or Sunnis, etc.) for whatever reason we are not talking about islamophobia. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

BTW there is no such thing as discrimination against all peoples of Greater Middle Earth. at once. Yes, some people hate all GME, but either each piece is hated separately, for its own reason, or all of them are hated for a single big reason called racism. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Your third consideration—the risk of superflously packing the article with notes and comments to the point of cluttering—is actually the only reason why I still have some doubt about this.

If you have any experience talking to average Joes about Islam or, at least, listening to them talking about it themselves, then you should know very well that it's not just somebody's opinion, but a sad reality.

First of all, Poland is not a Muslim-majority country; consider that. “[O]r concepts” may be a vague permission, but don't disown the subsequent clause: “that they may have been seeking instead.” How many people could have come to this article about Islamophobia “seeking instead” an article about Polonophobia? Contrastingly, myriads of people confuse the former with anti-Arabism.

Yes, the “See also” section may also be a suitable place for it, though “See also” sections are dedicated more to related concepts than similar ones.

That those people can't tell an Arab from an Iranian, or vice versa, speaks in support of, rather than oppoistion against, restoration of the note. It spares us from having to list the smaller ethnicities, which was a concern of ours as it could lead to cluttering. EIN (talk) 08:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

"Greater Middle Earth" indeed. These "discrimination" articles are a perpetual troll magnet on the wiki, and because of this all edits must be well-sourced and well-balanced. Just waving your hands and claiming that this is "often confused" with that goes nowhere. "Islamophobia" or "Polonophobia" aren't real things, they are just a matter of perception and propaganda. If you have a decent analysis of all this hysteria, by all means cite and quote it. If you want to "talk to average Joes" and then write a piece on what you heard, get a blog. --dab (𒁳) 15:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. The dabnotes in wikipedia are to help navigate among similar article titles, not among things an Average Joe confuses. The article Chinese people does not a hat note "for articles about other slanted-eyed people see Korean people or Mongol people" just because all of them are "chinks" for an average "hick". Staszek Lem (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Where's the specific neutrality dispute?

This article got tagged this month as possibly biased, but I can't find specific points of notice on the talk page. Can anybody fill the rest of us in? Indiasummer95 (talk) 12:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

It was added by a user named Dbachmann after large scale rewites they tried were reverted.--174.93.167.9 (talk) 04:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what other peoples neutrality dispute is about but I don't like the fact that Islamophobia is being called racism without acknowledgement that defining it that way is not agreed upon by all scholars and certainly controversial.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I will start by discussing the neutrality of the opening sentence.

• The first line of the lead suggests an established definition of Islamophobia as though it were the standardized definition.
• "Islamophobia is prejudice against,hatred towards, or irrational fear of Muslims" So all prejudice towards Muslims is Islamophobia? All hatred of Muslims is Islamophobia? But then why is there such a schism among the voices in the article as to the relevance and proper usage of the term? This oversimplification of the definition denotes a clear editorial voice from which the article never fully recovers.
• A more accurate and less imposing definition would state something like: "Islamophobia is a term used by scholars and social scientists to describe perceived acts and expressions of prejudice against,hatred towards, and irrational fear of Muslims." I believe that the word neologism belongs in there somewhere, but will try to keep from stepping on toes.
• While the article does provide several different descriptions of Islamophobia, it fails to define the term in a clear way that allows the reader to understand what is meant during each usage.
• In the second paragraph, the Runnymede trust's definition of the term is given, though the reader should not be forced to take this particular definition as the defining voice on the subject. If the reader does so, then this one organization's voice is given undue weight.
• In the third paragraph of the lead, we have a description of the Stockholm International Forum on Combating Intolerance declaration on islamophobia, but at this point, we have virtually no idea how they are defining the term. If one takes the article's text at face value, then the Stockholm definition is the same as Runnymede's. But there are many voices below that disagree with the use and definition of the term, and to allow these two voices to define the term is to base the entire text of the article on a narrow view of the overall debate regarding the use of the word. This reference talks about combating islamophobia, but it does not provide text that one normally finds in a lead paragraph, which should lay a foundation for discussion with a broad view of the subject, instead a very distinctive usage is provided that complicates the overall voice and neutrality of the article.

I apologize for the poor layout of my argument, but my point is simple: the lead portion of the article is clearly slanted towards a definition given by Runnymede and does not give a neutral view of the term itself. Mrathel (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't actually speaking about the lede and my argument is not that all attacks on Muslims are not Islamophobic my argument is that Islam is not a race, ethnicity or nationality. The closest equivilent in racial/ethnic terms are Arabs however I'm Arab and I don't practice Islam. The controversy I have is not over whether it is wrong (I believe it is wrong to judge someone by their religion), its whether its racism or religious intolerance. This article only states once after its called racism that that designation is controversial. I even acknowledge the term racism is used but believe it should be designated as an unagreed upon use of the term racism.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

And I agree that since Islam is not a race it is logically problematic to suggest it is a race issue without equating the term to Anti-Arabism. For the term to differentiate itself, it seems logical that the phenomenon must go beyond a hatred/prejudice against Arabs to a fear of all individuals who practice the religion. However, since my concerns regard the neutrality of the article, I would like them to be addressed before the tag is removed. Mrathel (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

But there are no races (all people belong to Homo sapiens sapiens) so that should, by your way of thinking, show that racism does not exist. This is obviously false. // Liftarn (talk)

I honestly do not understand your logic at all. Perhaps you can backtrack and explain more clearly how the the failure to categorize followers of a religion as a race negates the existence of all races? Mrathel (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The quote in question is "since Islam is not a race it is logically problematic to suggest it is a race issue" and it made me think you was one of those that claim that there can be no racism as NNN is not a race (which is true sine the human species consists of a single race). By using the argument "NNN is not a race so hate/prejudice/persecution of NNN can not be racism" you can prove that nothing is racism. For instance "black is a skin colour, not a race so KKK can't be racists", "Judaism is a religion, not a race so Adolf Hitler was no racist.", "Pakistani is a nationality/national origin, not a race so paki bashing is not racism." and so on. // Liftarn (talk)

Then we are simply dealing with a misunderstanding, as I assume you will grant that religion is not the sole signifier of race. Mrathel (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Cats have races. Dogs have races. Humans does not have races. Anyway, that is irrelevant anyway since racism does not require any races in a scientific sense for it to exist. // Liftarn (talk)

The first sentence says, "Islamophobia is prejudice against, hatred towards, or irrational fear of Muslims." Of course that is the definition." The only question is what comes under this definition. And the article does not define islamophobia as racism. 21:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs)

I disagree that that is the the definition of the word. While the neologism has been used many times in recent years by a wide variety of sources, it does not have such a cut and dry definition as is evident by the wide range of differing opinions of how the term should be used, and many of those criticisms are listed in the article. By beginning with a limited, unsourced definition the article cannot hope to regain its neutrality. I know it may seem a small point of contention, but I believe the opening sentence should be broader in scope and acknowledge that, as a new word, it enjoys a variety of evolving usages. Within the article, there is the Kunst quote:

"As opposed to being a psychological or individualistic phobia, according to professor of religion Peter Gottschalk and Gabriel Greenberg, "Islamophobia" connotes a social anxiety about Islam and Muslims.[23][24] Some social scientists have adopted this definition and developed instruments to measure Islamophobia in form of fearful attitudes towards, and avoidance of, Muslims and Islam,[25][26]arguing that islamophobia should "essentially be understood as an affective part of social stigma towards Islam and Muslims, namely fear"

Here we have a clear statement that that the phobia portion of the word is interpreted different ways, and it also states that it the fear is an essential part of Islamophobia. However, according to the definition currently in the article, mere prejudice against Islamic individuals or hatred of them can be called islamophobia regardless of the presence of fear. Mrathel (talk) 00:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

With the addition of racism into the definition, it is now perfectly clear that what we are dealing with is not a distinct definition of the word. It is not the place of editors to define a word based upon their own selected group of sources. I believe the article on homophobia does a better job of explaining how a term encompasses a wide range of ideas which are not properly described by a made-up definition. By beginning: "Islamophobia is..." the article begins on a very shaky and contentious foundation. Mrathel (talk) 11:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

How about article on Kafirophobia or Infidelophobia?

Let's take a look at the term phobia from Wikipedia article: A phobia (from the Greek: φόβος, Phóbos, meaning "fear" or "morbid fear") is, when used in the context of clinical psychology, a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational.. So, people fearing Muslims suffer from anxiety disorder? Do they go to any extent to avoid them(like how Muslims avoid non-Muslim women to be taken as wives)? Any person has phobia of Doomsday & Judgment day, why not make phobia article on it? So, a person who fears Hell or Heaven suffers from phobia, why not make a big article on it? I see those articles as stubs : Stygiophobia. A person who fears god also suffers from kind of phobia, why not name it? Why not an article on godophobia??. Can we have Infidelophobia or Kafirophobia article in Wikipedia please, because non-muslims are not allowed in Mecca and are not given rights to practice their religious practices in certain Islamic countries. Apply it to everything else, or take neutral stance!I wish Wikipedia maintains NPOV! - Vatsan34 (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

As much as you may be personally affronted by the title of this article, it is very strongly supported by reliable sources. A large list of them can be seen at Talk:Islamophobia/Archive_14#Proposal_to_rename_article_to_"Anti-Islamic_sentiment". Check it out... If you can get such a list together for other 'phobias then you'll have a topic for an article. Binksternet (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for sounding rude. (Read my replies thinking of me grinning from end to end) Actually, there should be NPOV and I think of it while reading an article. But, when I read this article, I felt it is biased to large extent. Why? Because the sources that were quoted does not talk about the other side. The reliable sources were not neutral and no mainstream media has the guts to publish any article on Infidelophobia or godophobia. By the way, I think this is about improving neutrality of this article and I am not trying to make this as a discussion forum.-Vatsan34 (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

No mainstream media has the guts to publish articles on words you've just made up? How appalling... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Not just made up, friend. I have seen it in many blogs and social media networks. Infidelophobia has been mentioned by many people before me. Again, I am not against this topic, but I wanted a balance and neutrality. Since we do not have reliable source, maybe we have to wait till some newspaper gets some time to see the other side. But, still I feel, this topic is boasted too much and lacks NPOV.-Vatsan34 (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources. I suggest you start looking for reliable sources and then come back. Since the article gives the mainstream view as well as some notable (or not so notable) fringe views it is balanced. Giving the lunatic fringe as much space as the mainstream academics would be unbalanced. // Liftarn (talk)

Islamophobia = racism?

This is a an exceptional claim because Islam is, as we all know a religion and a world religion with many, many races and cultures under its roof, and exceptional claims need exceptional sources per WP policy. A few sources advocating the view Islamophobia = racism certainly are not enough to redefine the entire subject as long as there is no wide consensus in scholarship supporting this equation. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand this. Yes, Islam is a religion. The word 'racism' is often used to include those who are against a particular religion - as our article on racism says, "Some definitions of racism also include discriminatory behaviors and beliefs based on cultural, national, ethnic, caste, or religious stereotypes." I've replaced the sourced text and the category (categories are not definitions, they are navigation aids and help readers find related articles). Dougweller (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I take the point about the text you removed, but it is clear that there are a number of sources seeing Islamophobia as racist, so I've replaced the template and of course the category. Those belong. You can't just remove them because not everyone agrees that Islamophobia is racist, and I'll note that denying racism is something characteristic of a number of racists. Dougweller (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Islamophobia has been described as racism by many observers including political scientist Raymond Taras in his 2012 book Xenophobia and the Islamophobia in Europe ISBN 9780748650712. I don't understand the complaint against racism; it does not jibe with sources. Binksternet (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet, you mean it does not jibe with the handful of sources provided that interpret it as racism; there is little evidence that it is a consensus that islamophobia equates to racism or that religion itself is a sole signifier of race. Likewise, Dougweller, I LOVE the fact that you noted that denying racism is a characteristic of racists. You might as well have said, "If you disagree with me on this point, you are probably racist." Touché!Mrathel (talk) 11:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

That isn't at all what I said. I said that some racists deny that they are racists. That's a fact. I also don't see anyone suggesting that religion is a sole signifier of race. There will be no consensus that Islamophobia is racist since it is clear that someone deny that it is. How does that affect the article? Dougweller (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

As long as nobody manage to produce sources of equal weight (papers published in peer reviewed scientific journals) that says that islamophobia isn't racism I don't see the problem with saying islamophobia is a form of racism. // Liftarn (talk)

Nobody here is saying that religion is the sole signifier of racism; rather, religion is one of the elements of racism. Islamophobia has a racist streak running through it. Binksternet (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

So if a minority of sociologists or scientists hold an opinion, it becomes consensus unless the theory is directly contradicted by the majority? Nowhere in academia is such a principle adopted. And Dougweller, I appreciate your statement of fact. However, the fact you presented did not apply to the article or sources in the article. Instead it is clearly focused at editors responding in the talk page, particularly those disagreeing with you. There is no other way it can be read, and don't get me wrong, I found it quite amusing. Mrathel (talk) 11:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually 100% of the sociologists and scientists who stated their view on the matter consider islamophobia a form of racism. That's quite a significant majority. // Liftarn (talk)

Really? 100%? Each and every source on this page clearly states that islamophobia is always based on the race of the individual or individuals upon whom it is focused? That simply is not true. Perhaps you are only counting the ones who mention racism in regards to islamophobia, in which case you are purposefully selecting a narrow sample. Mrathel (talk) 12:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

100% of the peer-reviewed articles that states anything on the subject says islamophobia is a form of racism. That is correct. Have you found any reliable sources that contradicts that? It's not like it's a far fetched idea. // Liftarn (talk)

Ok, so after re-reading it I can see how it could refer to sources, though the "I'll note" phrasing personalizes the assertion.Mrathel (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually I know that at least one source on here stated it was "like racism" I used it to justify my inclusion of "but this is controversial" when the lede stated it was racism.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to weigh in here. @Binksternet/Dougweller - re "I don't understand this. "Some definitions........ caste, or religious stereotypes."" - You're both missing the point. Sure "Some definitions" (emphasis on the weasel word added) might say racism may be directed towards religion. When one is trying to be clear and concise, one does not use words like "racism" in their lesser known, secondary contexts. Racism is against races. Or at least, generally speaking, in most peoples' minds racism is against races. Islam is not a race. Sure, maybe racism can be, under some definitions, against Islam, but why get wrapped up in this technicality? @Liftarn - re "Actually 100% of the sociologists and scientists" - That is so childishly specious, I don't think it warrants a response.

To conclude; I vote to delete the word "Racism". NickCT (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You assume that simple definitions of race, racism and Islam suffice to separate racism from Islamophobia. Unfortunately, this topic is more complex than than that, more convoluted. Racism is a big part of Islamophobia. The sources that have been brought forward agree with this more complex assessment. Binksternet (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The article does not say it is racism but that it may be racism. While it is true that Islam is a religion not a race, there is in fact only one race, the human race, yet racism remains a meaningful concept. TFD (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

@Binksternet - re "Unfortunately, this topic is more complex than than that," - It's only more complex if you make it more complex. NickCT (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's be absolutely clear about this: we don't 'vote' to exclude material because we don't agree with it. If a significant number of reliable sources state that Islamophobia may involve racism, then our article will say so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump - While I agree with you in spirit, I think the real sticking point is going be defining "a significant number". Granted I haven't done a source review yet, but I can't imagine there are many high quality RS that explicitly call Islamophobia racism. NickCT (talk) 03:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

"Granted I haven't done a source review yet..." Okay, then, let us shut this thread down until everybody has seen the sources. It is ridiculous to argue sources without reading them. Binksternet (talk) 03:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I've glanced through sources. Conclusions - there are what appear to be some high quality RSs which treat the term "Islamophobia" as synonymous with "Racism". One of the better ones is from The Sociological Review. That said, the huge majority of sources which discuss the topic of "Islamophobia", do not mention it in relation to racism. It's hard to define what a "huge majority" is, but to get a sense I did some search engine testing, and, of sources whose primary topic is "islamophobia", less than 5% of them mention racism. This finding supports my earlier suspicion that if "racism" is one of the definitions for "islamophobia", it is a definition that is very rarely used. After reviewing sources, I'm still of the position that calling "islamophobia" a form of "racism" in the lead sentence does not appropriately reflect a majority of sources, and is hence WP:UNDUE. NickCT (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

[On the accusation of racism against Muslims] The accusation displays an intentional and foolish mix up of volitional religious faith and non-volitional ethnicity. -Christopher Hitchens, (HS 29 August, 2010). Such criticism of the application of the term racism for Islamophobia is quite clear. In the past discussion, some concluded that an applicable term would be "cultural racism" (the article has been deleted). I suppose that's more accurate, even if both definitions are pretty vague when it comes to religions. --Pudeo' 00:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

A controversial journalist? That is the best source you could come up with? I don't think his personal views outweighs reep-rebviewed scientific journals. // Liftarn (talk)

Liftarn - On or two RSs which propose unusual definitions don't really stand up against the sea of sources which offer a different definition. NickCT (talk) 19:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

NickCT, you need to a source that says most informed sources do not call it racism. Hitchens was not an authority on anything. TFD (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there a source saying that most sources call it racism then? Apparently we can't produce an overview ourselves so that claim would have to be referenced then. And no, Hitchens is not an authority though notable enough to be featured in the article's debate section perhaps. It was merely the atheist view of the term Islamophobia, contrary to the Islam apologist view presented here. --Pudeo' 01:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The article does not say that most sources call it racism. Hitchens wrote about all kinds of things. Do you think we should start adding his comments to the thousands of articles where he might have held an opinon? TFD (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

@TFD - re "you need to a source that says most informed sources do not call it racism". No I don't. Per WP:DUE; "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". The fact is, it's up to us to determine what "in proportion to the promnence" means. Search engine testing is good way to do this. Go to Google, type in "Islamophobia" and scroll through the first 20 links. See how many mention "racism". Not many do. The assertion that Islamophobia is a type of racism is very very low prominence. NickCT (talk) 06:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Racism is mentioned in the Runnymede Trust report - if it has changed since then please provide a source. Incidentally, search engine testing is a poor way to determine the prominence of a view. Most hits for "liberal" for example do not say it is an ideology. Most hits for the US do not say that it is an English-speaking country. Most hits for David Cameron do not say he is MP for Witney. Yet they are important for those articles. TFD (talk) 07:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

re "search engine testing is a poor way to determine the prominence of a view" - Granted. But consider that I've provided you with a poor way to determine prominence (which says "Racism" is not prominent) and you've provided no way of determining prominence. So given you've provided no evidence to the contrary, I suggest we accept that Racism and Islamophobia are not commonly linked. NickCT (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Sources have been provided that they are linked. You need to provide sources that they are not. Incidentally I mentioned the Runnymede Trust report. If you have not heard of it you obviously have little knowledge of the subject of this article. TFD (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

@TFD - re " you obviously have little knowledge" - Well obviously. But that's not the subject at hand. The subject at hand is whether the assertions that "Islamophobia is a kind of racism" or "Islamophobia and racism are linked" are prominent among sources discussing Islamophobia. I don't know why you are saying that I need to provide a source which explicitly states they are not prominent. That position isn't supported by policy and you're basically asking me to prove a negative. The onus is on you to prove the "racism" thing is a prominent enough assertion that it belongs in the lead. I've already shown by search engine testing that it's not prominent. Do you have any counter argument beyond "You don't know anything about this subject" or "You need a reference"? NickCT (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

See for example, Islamophobia, Chapter I, first sentence. "The 'first decade of Islamophobia' began with the landmark publication of the highly influencial report entitled, Islamobphobia: a challenge for us all: report of the Runnymede Trust Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia ('the Runnymede Report')."[1] Having shown how a term was coined and defined, we do not have to demonstrate that subsequent writers who use the term are using the same definition, you must prove the negative, i.e., prove that the meaning of the term has changed. In the same sense, having shown that the definition of a cat is that it is a mammal, we do not need to show that most mentions of cats on Google say that it is a mammal, you need to prove the negative, that it is no longer considered to be a mammal. "cat" returns 381 million hits on Google,[2] while "cat"+"mammal" returns only 5 million hits.[3] TFD (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

re "having shown how a term was coined and defined" - Ok. So you're contesting that the source that coined the term associated it with racism? That would perhaps be valuable point. Could you link and quote the part of the Runnymede Report you're referring to, b/c Islamophobia, Chapter I doesn't seem to suggest that the report did call Islamophobia racism.

re "that it is no longer considered to be a mammal" - Good analogy. But what you really want to ask is whether the other lead descriptors in Cat (e.g. "furry", "carnivorous") are significantly more or less associated with "cat" than "mammal" is. For instance, if a million hits associated "cat" with the word "carnivorous", but only 100 associated it with the word "mammal", that might be an indication the assertion that "Cats are mammals" might not be prominent. Note, we're not questioning here whether cats are or are not mammals. We're simply questioning whether the assertion is "prominent" as compared with other descriptors. Similarly we're not questioning whether Islamophobia is or isn't racism. Simply whether the viewpoint is prominent.

Actually, reexamining the search engine testing relative to the other terms we're using (e.g. "hatred", "prejudice"), the term "racism" is relatively common. Glancing through the hits I think most of them are articles discussing why Islamophobia is like racism rather than explicitly stating the two are related. Regardless, it makes the search engine test slightly less convincing than I thought it initially was. NickCT (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

JEMIMA KHAN is a white English 'Anglo Saxon' Muslim. If I were to be afraid of her beliefs would I be racist towards her? As for Christopher Hitchens, he was more of 'an authority' on things than most of the authors cited in this article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.7.105.138 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 6 July 2013

Irrational belief systems do not have to be rational. White racists have targeted white people married to black people. That does not mean they hate white people. And Hitchens has no qualifications as an expert. TFD (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Please note that what we say is that islamophobia is

• prejudice against

or

• hatred towards

or

• irrational fear of

or

• racism towards

So we have several different meanings covered. // Liftarn (talk)

Misuse of the term & conflicting definitions

The first sentence says, "Islamophobia is prejudice against, hatred towards, or irrational fear of or racism towards Muslims." I have no doubt that there are people who are prejudiced against individual Muslims (i.e. pre-judge an individual based on the average characteristics of a group to which that individual belongs). I have no doubt there are people who hate all Muslims. I have no doubt there are people who are afraid of Muslims for irrational reasons. Perhaps the term "Islamophobia" aptly describes such behaviour and beliefs.

However, in my experience, the term "Islamophobia" is often described differently than the definition in the first sentence of this article (see below) and is often (mostly?) twisted and used indiscriminately to describe criticism of certain dogma and tenets of Islam and is also used in Europe to describe the suggestion that Islam and Muslim immigration is posing a problem for civil society. Whether or not these criticisms of the dogma and tenets of Islam are valid and whether or not the claims that Islam and Muslim immigration is posing a problem for civil society are valid are irrelevant questions for this article and for my point. The point is that the term is very often being patently misused by people with knee-jerk sensitivity to any remark which could possibly have been spawned by racist sentiments, and this reality is not reflected in this article. It is a lamentable bit of irony that many of the people who (rightfully) so harshly condemn prejudice against Muslims are the ones who pre-judge a critic of Islam/multiculturalism by assuming that that critic's remarks are fueled by prejudice, bigotry, hatred, and racism.

I do not think it is a matter of opinion that the term is sometimes used inaccurately. The term is undeniably used inaccurately when it is applied to a statement that is critical of Islam or multiculturalism, for example, but where the statement does not assert that all Muslims, or even most Muslims, are a problem. An excellent example of misuse of the term can be found in an article by Gallup. [Link] In it, it implies that certain things are Islamophobic:

• Some people do not respect Muslim societies (as if disrespecting a society for their values implies a prejudice against all people from that society)
• The opinion that there is a conflict between Islam and Western values (as if such an opinion meant that the individual with that opinion is necessarily prejudiced against all Muslims)
• The peculiar statement that it is "alarming" that 1/3 of people in the US who self-report no prejudice against Islam say they have an unfavorable view of Islam. Apparently is has not occurred to Gallup that one can believe a religion has problematic tenets and dogma without necessarily believing that all people who adhere to that religion adhere to those tenets and dogma.
• The opinion that certain religious beliefs [Islam] threaten the Western way of life

Furthermore, there is a conflict of definitions on this Wiki page. If we accept the first sentence's definition of Islamophobia, then it is in conflict with Runnymede's claim that what constitutes Islamophobia includes beliefs that Islam is inferior to the West, is barbaric, is irrational, is primitive, is sexist, is violent, is aggressive, is threatening, is supportive of terrorism, and is a political ideology. Note that none of these beliefs, which Runnymede equates with Islamophobia, are necessarily held in conjunction with "prejudice against, hatred towards, or irrational fear of or racism towards Muslims." This conflict is not addressed in this article.

Islamophobia, as defined in the opening sentence, undoubtedly exists, and it is odious. However, I do not see much mention in this article of the blatant misuse of the term to describe statements which do not necessarily have anything to do with "prejudice against, hatred towards, or irrational fear of or racism towards Muslims." I also do not see how the article reconciles the contradiction between the opening sentence and what Runnymede says. Aelius28 (talk) 07:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you cite sources which make this argument? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Lots of terms are often used inaccurately. So what? TFD (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Australia

I found this sentence in the lede:

"Moral panics and "racist" campaigns against Muslims have been increasing in Australia since the mid-1990s."

Since there's nothing further about this in the main article, I am now removing this, but thought I would post it here in case anyone thinks it belongs in the article and can convincingly integrate it into the main body. Alfietucker (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Not racism

If criticising the central tenets of a religion is racism, then British TV is racist every night, Ricky Gervais is a popular racist etc. Mehdi Hasan insulted my religion, atheism. Care to put racist in the first sentence of his article? Even Bin Laden isn't called racist on this website for killing people because of their religion. Indiasummer95 (talk) 11:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

First, Islamaphobia isn't simply criticizing the central tenets of a religion, anymore than anti-semitism can be defined as criticizing the central tenets of Judaism. Apples and granite. Secondly, Islamaphobia isn't a person, your other examples are. And finally, whatever your opinion is, you know by know how we work and that we rely on sources. Dougweller (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

So is the concept of Islamism or a Global caliphate racist then? Indiasummer95 (talk) 11:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not a forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm tired of this comparison with anti-Semitism. Antisemitism is a form of racism because Jews are not only a religious group but an ethnic group there are atheist, Christian and yes Muslim Jews. I would love to meet a Muslim Christian or Muslim Hindu. 1 in 37 Jews is a convert the majority of the rest are Jews by blood. There is evidence that in the United States and Israel most Jews don't even practice Judaism. Now is Islamophobia bad. Absolutely as a matter a fact it kills people. Its a horrible social disease. But it is against a religion. Like an attack on Hinudism, Shinto, Wicca or Christianity. What if we called attacks on Scientology racism. Now if we are going to call it racism fine but you better be willing to put it on every other anti-religion article. The point of the matter is that whether we are talking about racism, sexism, homophobia or religious intolerance all kill people and all are forms of prejudice, discrimination and bigotry. That should be enough.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The article is based on published reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes you are correct certain sources say one thing. At least one source in the article says something else. That's why I've suggested before adding the word controversially to show there is disagreement. Not to completely eliminate the fact that some people see it one way and btw you did not address a single part of my argument.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't address your argument because it is yours. We base articles on published reliable sources, not on the opinions of contributors. AS for your suggestion that we add the word 'controversially', can you cite a source that states that it is controversial? There are clearly differing definitions of the term Islamophobia, but that in of itself doesn't amount to a 'controversy'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The idea that Islamophobes don't target people by ethnic group seems dubious, and in any case racism is often seen as targeted at cultural, caste or religious groups - and by and large Muslims form a cultural group. And to a large extent skin color factors in here also. Dougweller (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a myth, that people target islamic or muslim population by race, they actually target them by the events that they have heard of. Capitals00 (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Islamophobia = Ku Klux Klanophobia

I have spent about 8000 hours studying political aspects of Islam, so I know more about it than all the other members of this forum. Islamophobia pertains to Islam, so it cannot be defined as fear of Muslims. Furthermore, the fear of Muslims is not irrational phobia, but sanity. ISLAM IS NOT A RELIGION. IT HAS NEVER BEEN A RELIGION AND IT WILL NEVER BE A RELIGION. ISLAM IS THE MOST GENOCIDAL IDEOLOGY EVER CONCEIVED BY A HUMAN MIND. Muslims exterminated about 300 millions of innocent people. Communists exterminated less than 100 million people. German Nazis exterminated about 50 million people. Muslims killed: 120 million Africans, 90 million Christians, 80 million Hindus, 10 million Buddhists. sources: http://www.politicalislam.com/tears/pages/tears-of-jihad http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death http://arabracismislamofascism.wordpress.com/2010/10/29/jihad-in-numbers/

"Islam is politics or it is nothing." - Ayatollah Khomeini, source: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1988/jan/21/islamic-revolution/?pagination=false

"Muslims must kill non-believers wherever they are unless they convert to Islam." - Ali Gom’a (grand mufti of Egypt, the highest Islamic authority in the world; Al Ahram, April 7, 2008) source: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/8066

If Islam is a religion, then Fascism, Nazism, and Scientology are religions. If Ku Klux Klan calls itself a religion, we have a duty to call it a religion and to respect it, because it is a religion.

"Fascism was the first and prime instance of a modern political religion… This religion sacralized the state and assigned it the primary educational task of transforming the mentality, the character, and the customs of Italians. The aim was to create a 'new man,' a believer in and an observing member of the cult of Fascism." - Emilio Gentile

In Cologne, the children receiving meals from the Nazi state during the Second World War had to pray before the meal, “Fold your hands, bow your head and think about Adolf Hitler. He gives us our daily bread and helps us out of every misery” source: "National Socialism as Religion" by Thomas Schirrmacher, http://www.contra-mundum.org/schirrmacher/NS_Religion.pdf

The translators of Mein Kampf said, “Hitler attempted to make himself the ‘prophet’ of the new German religion…. He believed that if a new ‘myth’ could be created and propagated as stubbornly, it would give Germans a new faith which the masses would cherish as tenaciously as they previously followed Christianity.” source: http://www.islam-watch.org/SujitDas/Heil-Hitler-Heil-Muhammad.htm

Germany classes Scientology as a business, rather than a religious organization, and has even gone so far as to ban Scientology. Belgium, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, and the United Kingdom have not recognized Scientology as a religion. Scientology has also not been recognized as a religion in Israel or Mexico. A recent judicial investigation in Belgium is now in the process of prosecuting Scientology… One sociologist, Stephen A. Kent, has expressed the following opinion: "I find it far more helpful to view it as a transnational corporation, only one element of which is religious." source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#Controversy_and_criticism

Quinacrine (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)