Talk:Islamophobia

Research reports

While reading up on the subject I found http://expo.se/www/download/research_the_anti_muslim_environment_final.pdf that might be useful. I also found http://expo.se/www/download/expo-4-07-kriget-mot-islam.pdf but it might not be accessible for many since it's in Swedish. Both are published by Expo (magazine) and features some havey academic names as writers. // Liftarn (talk)

This Article is Crap

This article is name-calling with the fictious word of Islamophobia. like Homophobia, as criticism-hatred of homosexual lifestyles, which is not like what it says at all.

This is because the Islamophobia word is a name-calling word by staunch critics of Islam like Robert Spencer, who have a legtimate fear of Muslims and Islam, which is what Islamophobia is called, and wrongly so. Islamophobia was a word invented by the Islamist lobbyists like CAIR against people like Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller and the bias smells more rotten, than a stinking fish.

Just saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.11.158.220 (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, we try changing the title or deleting it every year or so. It is probably best to check the results of the last request linked at the top of page before nominating. It has a group of ardent supporters. Student7 (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, just like antisemitism is criticism is Jewish lifestyle... // Liftarn (talk)

Arguably, antiislamism would be a more neutral term, but unfortunately Islamism is already a term referring to something more narrow than just Islam in general so that title would be misleading. -- LWG ^talk 15:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Islamophobia is an established term. Wikipedia is not the place to invent new terms that would be "better", "more neutral", or "more descriptive". We have no choice but to use the terms that are established and widely in use. No matter if we like them or not. Xenophobia is not called "Antiforeignerism" either, nor is homophobia called "Antigayism". Antisemitism is actually a wrong term, because Arabs are Semites too, and so are ancient Mesopotamians. Still, if Arabs hate Jews, they are antisemitic. And if I hate Gilgamesh or Nebuchadnezzar, I am not antisemitic. "Antijewishism" would be the better term, but "antisemitism" is established, and we won't change it. --RJFF (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Essentially both Islamophobia and homophobia are media-supported terms and the rest of us must go along with their agenda which is pro-Islam and pro-gay, which is why they deliberately seized on these little used terms. Student7 (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually the terms are very pertinent. I have regularly heard gay people themselves talk about homophobia. Please don't bring up "pro-Islam" as an opposite - because this is not about an issue of two poles, this is an issue about a particular form of xenophobia. And as RJFF says, it is a regularly used term now.--R-41 (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

If you read the antisemitism and this you would see the difference; that this piece of non sense says mostly it is a right thing to hate Islam which is in itself Islamophobia, the entry Islamophobia shouldn't be edited by Islamophobists. It is like letting Nazis write the entry of Nazi. Lighten up for the real Islamophobia is a very negative term for at least 1.5 billion people in the world. There are some other entries they may edit like critism or the like, but definetly not this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.86.3 (talk) 07:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

what do you mean? if there are problems with the article i suggest you fix them by being bold. back up your edits with reliable sources.-- altetendekrabbe  08:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Common false claims against Islam from Islamophobic perspective should be refuted in the article

This article should address the accusations made against Islam like the Anti-Semitism article addresses the accusations made against Jews and provides evidence that shows the flaws, errors, and lies made about Jews by anti-Semites. I, a non-Muslim, urge members of WikiProject Islam to make this article a top priority and have this article be less timid in challenging some of the nonsense xenophobic claims about Islam. Here are some recommendations by me of how it could be organized: Common Islamophobic claims that have been refuted

• (1) Claim: Islam is an enemy of Christianity and Judaism. Refutation: Islam alongside Christianity and Judaism is one of the three Abrahamic faiths. Islam considers Jesus a prophet. Tensions between Islamic and Christian society escalated as a result of the Crusades that Muslims believed was a campaign to destroy Islam in the Holy Land.
• (2) Claim: Islam is a barbaric religion is inherently intolerent to other cultures that suppresses science and other aspects of modernity to maintain a fundamentalist interpretation of religion. Refutation: During the Dark Ages in Christian Europe that experienced iconoclasm of non-Christian culture, Islamic societies rescued philosophical and scientific works of ancient Greek figures and Islamic societies were responsible for vastly developing mathematics. The Indian independence movement historically involved widespread cooperation between Hindus and Muslims. Future Pakistani President Muhammad Ali Jinnah historically was a member of the All-India Muslim League cooperated with Hindu leaders such as Mohandas Gandhi to achieve independence for a united Hindu and Muslim India, however violence between Hindu and Muslim extremists resulted in the necessity of partition of Pakistan to become an independent country. Multicultural Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia and Herzegovina held a high level of Muslim-Christian marriages, and in the beginning days of the Bosnian War Sarajevo's Muslim Bosniaks and Christian Serbs held a massive rally in opposition to the war and in support of the unity of the people of Sarajevo regardless of their culture.
• (3) Claim: All Islamic societies are opposed to the Western world and its achievements. Refutation: Though there have been anti-Western Islamic militants, there have historically been significant closer ties between Western and certain Islamic societies. There are many Islamic people who live in Western societies, and Western societies have historically befriended Islamic peoples such as United States' Founding Father of the Constitution and President Thomas Jefferson who declared that the United States should be open to people of all faiths and specifically mentioned Muslims, Jews, and Hindus as being welcome to live in the US.

There may be other things to mention, but these are some things that I thought should be mentioned.--R-41 (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

An interesting idea, but islamophobia is more about Muslims than Islam. I also predict a great deal of opposition to your suggestion from those who want to promote islamophobia. // Liftarn (talk)

I do not see where the Anti-Semitism article refutes false assertions, beyond calling some of the assertions false. We cannot use sources that are not specifically about Islamophobia to refute their claims. Do you have any sources we could use? TFD (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

A couple of comments on the first entry. The problem with "science" in Islam, was whether it was halal or haraam. Ultimately science was, in the Middle Ages, relegated to haraam, and violators (scientists) were either persecuted, or, if they were lucky, ignored. Western (Christian) thought, which had a different religious perspective on material, raced ahead and stayed ahead.

A volunteer Klu Klux Klan-like group of "enforcers" has persisted since the earliest days. Eventually, if you don't attend to prayers, "something" happens. Your tires go flat, a window is broken, that sort of thing. So fidelity isn't exactly voluntary. People are faithful because if they are not, bad things will "happen", thanks to the fanatic "enforcers" among them. The enforcers may be a minority as the KKK was in the American south, but they are persistent and their crimes ignored by the authorities (they own cars, have families, etc. too). Student7 (talk) 14:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

You should not be comparing anti-Semitism with "Islamophobia." They are not really related to each other, since one is a nonsensical racist prejudice against an ethnicity, and the other is simply an ideological opposition to a religion with which one disagrees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jose.medez248 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. Antisemitism may have grown out of religious opposition to Judaism, but it is more than that. // Liftarn (talk)

Obviously, which is what I have said. Anti-Semitism is a nonsensical racist prejudice against an ethnicity. Please learn to read.Jose.medez248 (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

And islamophobia is also a nonsensical prejudice against a persons of a specific religious background. Just like antisemitism. What can be called racial islamophobia is not as common as racial antisemitism, but it can be observed. // Liftarn (talk)

While I agree that Islamophobia is something that is wrong and needs to be eradicated the fact of the matter is this. Islamophobia is strictly about a religion. Muslims are not an ethnic group and one who is born of a Muslim parent is not automatically a Muslim. There is no such thing as racial Islamophobia. There is however Arabophobia which is a form of racism. However not all Muslims are Arab and not all Arabs are Muslims. On the other hand, if one is born of a Jewish mother or father they are ethnically Jewish and if they are born of a Jewish mother or convert they are also allowed to be considered religiously Jewish. Therefore Jews are an ethnic and religious group.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 09:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually it's enough to "look Muslim" to be the target of islamophobia. Islamophobes have for instance targetes Sikhs, Christians from for instance Lebanon, atheists with Muslim background and so on. If you look at the eurabia conspiracy theory it is clear that they count any child with at least one Muslim parent as a Muslim. // Liftarn (talk)

I partially agree with you. But think about this many people are discriminated againist for "acting" or "appearing" gay even when they are not but that dosn't mean we speak of racial homophobia. The fact of the matter is that being gay is a sexual orientation, being Muslim is a religious group and being Jewish is an ethnoreligious group.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong, but as this is not a discussion forum I think we need to stop here. // Liftarn (talk)

Just so you know, I do acknowledge that people are falsely thought of as Muslim and that any discrimination they face is Islamophobia. My concern was not that non-Muslims can't be victims of Islamophobia but the fact that we must remember that Muslims have never considered themselves an ethnic group and that if someone discriminates against someone because they think they appear Muslim it is because of stupid anti-Muslim prejudice not because of "racial" Islamophobia. Islamophobia however can become racism if an entire racial group is being stereotyped as being Muslim but only if the discrimination is based on that groups supposed belief of the people of that race in Islam not the race itself. Almost all social scientists however will not consider Muslim to be an ethnic group and neither do Muslims themselves. Jews do consider themselves to be an ethnic group and there is certain genetic evidence for it. If you wish to discuss further feel free to message my talk page.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

This specific connection is actually made by a Jewish scholar of anti-semitism in the article, see the Esther Benbassa reference. -Cheers, --benjamil (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This has gone way off topic from what was my original intention: to request for the inclusion of material in the article to refute common false claims thay are used to promote Islamophobia. I have opened a new section below with a revised proposal.--R-41 (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Yellow Badge of Shame

Since conservative and Jewish articles about organizations or movements critical of Islam or Muslims have a large "Islamophobia" notice at the top of each of their articles, Wikipedia should be fair and place a large anti-Semitism notice at the top of each article about liberal and Islamic organizations or movements opposed to Judaism or Jews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jose.medez248 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

No they don't.[1] However islamophobic organisations may have the template. // Liftarn (talk)

Yes, they do. See Counterjihad, Stop Islamization of America, and Eurabia. However, I do not see any large anti-Semitism notices at blatantly anti-Semitic organizations or movements such as Ku Klux Klan, White supremacy, Anti-Zionism, Nation of Islam, Palestinian nationalism, Pan-Arabism, Islamism, Communism, Far-left politics, Far-right politics, Respect Party, Aryan Brotherhood, or Muslim Brotherhood. Talk about bias. Jose.medez248 (talk) 00:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Counterjihad, Stop Islamization of America, and Eurabia are all relevant for islamophobia. Counterjihad is movement that is explicitly about islamophobia, Stop Islamization of America is an islamophobic organisation and Eurabia is an islamophobic conspiracy theory. As for the antisemitism template it is much more used[2]. If you want to include it in even more articles your first job is to find reliable sources for it. However this is not a suitable place to discuss that. // Liftarn (talk)

New version of proposal for the inclusion of material that refutes common inaccurate claims that have been made to promote Islamophobia

My previous recommendation broke down over disagreements over the wording of the proposition. Therefore I am revising it and keeping it short and simple to allow input by others especially on what the scope and limitations of such material should be. I am proposing that this article include refutations of common inaccurate claims that have been made to promote Islamophobia.--R-41 (talk) 01:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Like I wrote then you still need sources for it. // Liftarn (talk)

Even if you could provide the sources, you fail to see the purpose of Wikipedia which is not about ensuring an elite or politically correct narrative prevails but simply making knowledge available. If, as you claim, there is knowledge somewhere to refute common claims against a religion then it will be made available on those relevant pages, not in a paranoid or proleptic manner on this page.Mastershallow 12:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keizo Ibata (talk • contribs)

Neologism

First of all - political? Please provide an overweight of sources saying that the use of the term is political if you want to assert the characterisation of the term as political in the lead. Second: what information is conferred to the reader when the term is characterised as a neologism in the first lead sentence? As we've been over half a dozen time in these talk pages the term is the established term when it comes to discussing anti-islamic sentiments. Stating that it is a neologism in the first lead sentence is clearly WP:UNDUE. Best regards, benjamil (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, the 3rd sentence is adequate to explain when the term came into popular use. There's no need to add neologism to the 1st sentence. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

bigotry or prejudice?

Do we need both? This seems redundant. The sources and body of the article suggests that bigotry is the word that sums up the idea as used by those that find the concept potent. Prejudice is less precise. One can be prejudiced against or for something (and the article says "prejudiced against".) It is a prejudgment. Bigotry is an unwarranted negative assessment by a prejudgment or even after a study and examination of the people in question. It’s a persistence in an unfair assessment and not merely an initial prejudgment. Bigotry seems like the word that sums up what the sources are talking about. I vote for keeping “bigotry” and dropping “prejudice against.” Jason from nyc (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. We don't vote on content. Only reliable sources count. In this question I am in favor of using the word that is supported by the most reliable sources. This text, published by the World Jewish Congress, which is an advocacy group and not an academic institution, is not preferable over the cited scholarly texts published in academic works. --RJFF (talk) 15:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

According to What Is Islamophobia and How Much Is There? Theorizing and Measuring an Emerging Comparative Concept islamophobia is "indiscriminate negative attitudes or emotions directed at Islam or Muslims", but it also notes that there is no universally accepted definition. // Liftarn (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The words "prejudice" and "irrational"

The term islamphobia has two parts "islam" and "phobia", the term phobia means fear and the term literally means fear of islam. There is nothing in this word that denotes irrationality or prejudice and these terms and all allusions to irrationality should be struck from the article as superfluous and frankly pejorative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.7.250 (talk) 07:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Logic has nothing to do with it. The references provide evidence of the definition and usage of the term. I believe that the main references also describe the term as a kind of racism and this should be in the lead sentence. Critics, who find the usage problematic, are cited in the criticism section. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Phobia means irrational fear. TFD (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

A phobia is indeed an irrational fear so we may argue the whole term islamophobia is a loaded one and is being used to shut down discussion, much like for example Japan bashing which as you will see from our own sourced Wikipedia article, was a term created by a PR man employed by the Japanese government (to shut down any criticism of Japan's role in the world, whether justified or irrational). Mastershallow 12:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keizo Ibata (talk • contribs)

NPOV?

Why does this article start with criticism of the term? Other similar articles usually begins with a description of the phenomen, history, etc. This does not seem to be in line with WP:NPOV.PerDaniel (talk) 11:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I noticed this, and per WP:BRD, I've rewritten it based on an earlier version. Please discuss why the article's second sentence should be a criticism of the main term used to describe this phenomenon in scholarly literature before making any reverts.

Best regards, benjamil (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Given the size of the criticism section it makes sense to make some reference to the broad-based reservations (including scholarly literature) with the usage of this term. One would think you'd like the introduction to summarize the article. Why not? Jason from nyc (talk) 11:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

We should not have criticism sections in articles, but should present criticism in the article in appropriate sections. The criticism seems to be excessive. The second sentence says, "In his 2010 book Islamophobia/Islamophilia: Beyond the Politics of Enemy and Friend, Andrew Shryock states that applying the term "is an exercise in negative characterization, a fact that makes [it] invaluable for political purposes, but potentially misleading for analytical and interpretive ones"."[3] Yet Shryock is providing a caution, not a condemnation. We should note that Islamophobes do not call themselves that, and that the term can be used as a polemical. Shryock compares it to the terms "terrorist" and "homophobia". TFD (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

i agree. in addition, the criticism-section make up a huge part of the article violating wp:balance and wp:npov. i suggest to prune this section, removing non-academic and excessive content.-- altetendekrabbe  15:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually the policies only discourage criticism sections in biographical articles Wikipedia:CRITICISM#.22Criticism.22_section. When we're talking about a term like this with some amount of controversy, criticism section is pretty much the only way to go. Or in what sections did you think they should be incorporated? There's notable criticism of the term that is not included, from Christopher Hitchens for example. A lot of notable people have criticized this term, and that criticism should be included in this article – and it can't really be incorporate in any other sections either. --Pudeo' 15:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. However, let me ask everyone what criteria should be used to judge the size of the criticism section? The criticisms are diverse and span both academic and popular literature because the term is controversial. I agree with TFD that in many of the cases the criticism isn't a rejection of the term outright. Some see the term abused and that's a subtle criticism. The criticism are quite diverse and necessary. I think there should be some indication in the introduction that the term has created controversy. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, in that case the criticism should be formed in chapters that deal with the same type. It is already formed well I think, having comments by many authors in the same chapter detailing the type of the criticism. While the section is indeed pretty big, it has a pretty good selection of thoughts by persons who have their own Wikipedia articles. Generally speaking, this balancing between criticism and support is the biggest problem in Wikipedia – but are we in a position to determine what is enough in the section? Coherence is more important: criticism should be formed in coherent chapters instead of just a collection of quotes. As I wrote, this article is pretty good already with that. --Pudeo' 15:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

you can start by removing content that is not criticism but rather caution e.g. hari, shryock and others. secondly there is a lot of duplicate and identical criticism in the section. instead of duplicating content over and over again it's better to remove all quotes, summarize and give relevant sources. the section seriously violates wp:balance. i don't you'll find such an excessive criticism section on other pages dealing with discrimination or phobias or racism.-- altetendekrabbe  16:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah well, the Homofobia article does have a criticism section Homophobia#Criticism_of_meaning_and_purpose. Actually I like how that's formed, it distinguishes the criticism towards the term itself, ie. "Ad-hominem label". No serious author in the criticism section defends discrimination against Muslims, but they criticize the term. Christopher Hitchens said that there is a deliberate and silly confusion between ethnicity and freewilling religious fatih: ie. claiming that opposition to religion (antitheism) or religious practices would be racism. That's what most of the criticism is here, and should be covered as such. --Pudeo' 16:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

(out) WP:Criticism is an essay that does not necessarily reflect Wikipedia policy. Criticism sections are hinherently POV. I would suggest incorporation the material into a section on the use of the term itself. The term has become accepted in academic writing and the only objection to its use comes from people who have been accused of islamophobia and are writing outside the academic mainstream. While there may be academic disagreement over definitions and the term could be misused, that applies to most concepts in social sciences - liberal, anti-Semitic, upper class, anti-social, democratic, etc. TFD (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

No. You're claiming Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Salman Rushdie or signators of the Manifesto: Together Facing the New Totalitarianism or Richard Dawkins would be islamophobes. I suggest you read the criticism section again. They're not criticising anti-discrimination but the term, and their criticism is definitely notable. It doesn't fit in any other sections. --Pudeo' 16:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I updated the criticism section with a new title and three sub-sections per Homophobia#Criticism_of_meaning_and_purpose. Now it's not "criticism of Islamophobia" but the more accurate aspects of it. Fits well, I believe. --Pudeo' 17:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

yes, much better but i still think the whole thing can be pruned. as noted by user tfd the term is accepted in the mainstream academic community. the page can be filled with thousands of thousands of academic quotes supporting the term, and condemning its critics. however, that would render the article unreadable. a better way to obtain balance is by pruning the criticism section, and removing superfluous quotes.-- altetendekrabbe  17:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I, too, think the organizational changes are a vast improvement. But I also think it shows a variety of disagreements. I think it's all needed. The subject is complicated. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Puedeo', I did not "claim" that Ali, Rushdie and the other signatories of the manifesto against Islamic "totalitarianism" would be islamophobes, I wrote that the "only objection to its use comes from people who have been accused of islamophobia". Note what Ali et al write in the manifesto against "Islamism": "We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of "Islamophobia", a wretched concept that confuses criticism of Islam as a religion and stigmatisation of those who believe in it." Dawkins btw does not object to the term or deny it is meaningful, but correctly states that it can be misused. So my statement stands. Before quoting numerous people who don't like the term we need to establish how mainstream their view is. As I said, they were "writing outside the academic mainstream". TFD (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

agree. right now the view of the critics have almost the *same weight* as the views of the mainstream academia. this violates wp:undue, wp:balance and wp:npov. i suggest to take the matter to the neutral point of view noticeboard.-- altetendekrabbe  19:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Academic? The criticism section has a lot of academics: Paul Jackson, Daniel Pipes, Fred Halliday, Jose P. Zuquete, Erik Bleich and Johannes Kandel. So what are you on about, isn't that enough? Besides, you don't have to be an academic to be notable enough to participate in such discussion (like Christopher Hitchens as an author was not an academic). Yes, most of the criticism of this term is similar to that of Dawkins: no-one in the section is justifying discrimination. --Pudeo' 20:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Jackson writes that Islamophobia has now become a basic feature of the grievances forwarded by the 'new far right'. Indeed, the growth of the 'new far right' is strongly connected to the rise of 'Islamophobia' more generally." He then lists the eight "core aspects" of Islamophobia, before mentioning how Islamists misuse the term. The text quoted in the article leaves the impression that he opposes the word. Pipes is an academic but also a polemicist and he is writing for the New York Sun. Halliday's writing is worth mentioning, but note what he said. "That there is such a thing, as denoted by the term 'Islamophobia', is undoubtedly true". He is not "similarly criticiz[ing]" the concept. Zuquete does not say that use of the term should be "avoided", but that it should be "restrained" - his objection is to the misuse, not the use, of the term. Bleich is arguing for a better definition rather than saying the concept is useless. Kandel was writing for a think tank and we need to establish the degree of acceptance his views have.

True, one does not have to be an academic to engage in the debate. But weight requires us to show how academics view the topic. If they say someone's views are fringe, then we say that too and do not give them the same equivalency.

Most of this could be placed in the appropriate sections of the article. For example Halliday was responding to the Runnymede Trust report. Also, one source mention the Quilliam Foundation’s report, "Islamism and Language", which could be helpful in discussing the use of terminology.

TFD (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

i suggest you re-write the article while following wp:brd. clearly, some of the sources are misrepresented.-- altetendekrabbe  22:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Now you're talking more reasonably in my opinion too, but still, I emphasize that the definition and misuse criticism section doesn't claim people say the word shouldn't be used at all. There's only one chapter about denouncing the concept. So why not let people indeed read what the academics really said, acknowledging Islamophobia but criticizing it's use or definition? Surely you must agree that the misuse criticism must be preserved in the article. I don't see much room for shortening, except maybe for "Categorisation" section. Is there any reason not to include problematic sides of the term in the article? You say a POV section in any scenario is "inherently POV". I believe removing it also is. Just because the section deals with it in critical fashion, doesn't mean it's somehow attacked. Yes, Jackson uses Islamophobia itself, nowhere does it state in the text that he opposes the word. The chapter says he thinks its misuse is making 'Islamophobia' lose its analytical value, which he does think. Fits perfectly well in the context of misuse of the word. People supporting the word oppose the misuse of it, they're simply objective as academics. --Pudeo' 23:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy that there seems to be a fruitful discussion going on. I strongly support the clearer framing of the criticism in different categories, while I believe that some of the points that have been brought up in the discussion should probably be taken further. For instance, although I've put up a {{cn}} on the Zuquete quotation, I believe that the article in question is The European extreme-right and Islam: New directions?, and although I'd like to quote the first pages of that article in order to make this discussion as transparent as possible, that would violate copyright. I'll have to restrain the quotations to what I believe is the main point of his criticism:

I adopt an approach similar to that of Marcel Maussen, who calls for an urgent need to distinguish between ‘academic discussions on the relations between Islam and modernity, public discussions on whether Islam recognizes the principle of separation of church and state, public outcries about Islam as a “backward religion” or as a “violent religion”’, and hate speech.20 Certainly a sizeable number of those who pose questions regarding Islam are not necessarily motivated by an illogical attitude, biased mindset, pure fear, or blind hate.

(...)

In this light, ‘anti-Islamic’ seems a more suitable analytical category to apply to some (my emphasis) discourses on Islam, particularly those coming from the extreme-right, because it at least starts a necessary (and long overdue) process of distinguishing between discourses about Islam: those who show irrational fears and treat Islam as a monolithic bloc from those who may be critical of some aspects yet are not ipso facto ‘anti’ Islam because of their criticism.24

There are several points which I would like to make with regard to this:

1. Zuquete is currently misrepresented, because
2. he doesn't criticise the term as such, he criticises some uses of it.
3. His criticism doesn't really fall into the categorisation category, but has more to do with "alleged misuse", although
4. he doesn't really argue that the term is misused, only that its use has led to conflation of different issues.

For obvious reasons, I'm not going to put equally thorough analyses of the other sources in writing here (not tonight, at least). However, as even the current text reads, Miles and Brown actually support the use of the term. This plays into the discussion about the size of the criticism section. I believe that the discussion about how the term has subsumed several different discourses, and the reactions to this is well-documented and important to the article. However, I believe that a casual reader, just skimming the article, can be misled to believe that a lot of these authors disapprove of the term in a more general sense. The current framing took inspiration from the article on Homophobia, and, as a first step, is a great improvement. Still, the section in that article is somewhat more restrained: It offers proposed alternatives, it documents the point that the term is used as a ad hominem label, and documents the backlash. Strong, academic criticism, such as

Researcher Iain R. Williamson, in their 1998 work "Internalized Homophobia and Health Issues Affecting Lesbians and Gay Men" finds the term homophobia to be "highly problematic" but for reasons of continuity and consistency with the majority of other publications on the issue retains its use rather than using more accurate but obscure terminology.[54]

is put in the classification subsection internalized homophobia. This, in my opinion, points to the issue of context. Some criticism of this kind has already been put into context, mainly in the subsections about identity politics and links to other ideologies. I believe that a further contextualisation of this kind should be considered. In doing this, I think the structure of the article on Antisemitism could be useful for inspiration. Expanded sections on etymology and usage and on classification would allow better contextualisation of the criticism - which is good for understanding. In addition, it could also make it easier to incorporate some of the harshest critisism while maintaining balance. Noting that the literature on Islamophobia is (for obvious reasons) both less mature and less voluminous than that on anti-semitism, I'll round off this post with a link to that article's subsection on the term's usage, which, read with some awareness, offers important perspectives on several levels. Best regards, benjamil (talk) 23:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm all for clarifying such sentences, and that one could also be removed as not citated. While I do believe all the viewpoints should be presented, there is some room for compression, mostly in the "categorisation" section, although I believe atleast the criticism of the "not being a medical phobia" should be retained. But while it is a criticism section, it can have those 50%-50% views like that someone supports the term, but criticises something about it. So in that sense I don't share the view that a criticism section should be interpreted as a "debunking section" and I also put more responsibility on the readers to actually read the section – if every part of the criticism is completely according to the sources. Perhaps another problem in this is that "Criticism of the term Islamophobia" does not warrant an own article; while Criticisms of communist party rule does warrant, so the criticism section of communism never grows too big. So it's hard to balance here, but compressing the section is a possibility if done properly, and having no duplicate views. --Pudeo' 00:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Please remove nonsense from first sentence.

The first sentence of the article has a bizarre claim that Islam is a race instead of an ideology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.46.67.195 (talk) 02:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It does not say that Islam is a race. BTW, Islam is not an ideology, it is a religion. TFD (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

To some extent I agree. The intro does imply race through the evocation of the word, racism. Islam is a religion, yes; Islamism refers to the radical ideology that has grown out of it. Islamism is not a popular term with many people, but then nor is islamophobia. They are twin creations of each end of the political spectrum and replace many perfectly sufficient and less offensive terms like theocracy, prejudice etc. Mastershallow 12:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keizo Ibata (talk • contribs)

Islam is Racism

Racism has once again been added to the first sentence as a defining characteristic. I would think this should be discussed in the talk and a consensus reached. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

what do the sources used state?-- altetendekrabbe  11:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, that certainly is a controversial definition, and one of the main point of the criticism of the term. As the late Christopher Hitchens said, there is a "deliberate mixing between a free-willing and non-willing faith" or a "free-willing faith and ethnicity". As antitheism or even hate towards some religion would be racism, that's a pretty false and a very pro-religion POV. There is racism towards the Somalis, Arabs etc. But is there a reason to mix these? Liftarn did the changes without consulting anyone on the talkpage, unlike User:Benjamil who wrote the last lead and contributed to the talk page a lot. --Pudeo' 14:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The sources are not clear to me. Some define it as a type of racism, some don't defined that way but conclude it is, others argue that it can’t be. A quick look at the archive tells me this has been debated continuously over the last sever years. If it wasn’t part of the lead that tells me a consensus couldn’t be found. Perhaps someone who took part in this debate could summarize the conclusions. Perhaps others could provide the basis that this should be reopened. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, well, the article antisemitism does not define it as racism even. But there is a distinction still: the Jew is an ethnicity too. Surely Muslims: Indo-Aryans (Iranians), Somalis, Arabs are not a common "ethnicity or race" in the sense like the Jews. They're adherents of Islam. But perhaps it has to do with some inaccurate usage of racism common these days, like that discrimination against homosexuals is racism. But I don't think Wikipedia should use that broad, inaccurate definition. Is racism a synonym for discrimination in those sources? --Pudeo' 14:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, it depends on how you define "race". If you define it as sapiens or neanderthalis then no racism can exist today since neanderthalis is exinct. // Liftarn (talk)

Shouldn't we describe use and not prescribe use? Whether or not it makes sense, is racism a defining characteristic according to authoritative sources? Jason from nyc (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The first source of the article is quite clear. "The most important such form of cultural racism today is anti-Muslim racism, sometimes called Islamophobia.". // Liftarn (talk)

Let’s start with the Runnymede summary since that is clearly an authoritative document. [4] It says: “Racial violence is all of a piece therefore with anti-Muslim prejudice.” It continues by arguing that legal measures designed to address racial violence “is no longer adequate.” The implication is that religion is another dimension and it isn’t merely racism. Thus, it doesn’t define Islamophobia as racism but argues that racism is involved. If that is the case racism should be mentioned in the body but not the lead. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

We go with the sources, which call it racism. TFD (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Last time we met you insisted we go by academic sources. But atleast the two first citations only refer to cultural racism (which may be an interesting concept, no WP article) Actually the Meer and Noorani report (which says handles the current situation in a critical fashion) tells that: "anti-Muslim sentiment is often viewed as less self-evidently racial in orientation (Goldberg, 2006)." (first page of the pdf). The other sources are incorrectly marked, no page numbers indicated, but searching with raci* don't bring any definitive results. One sources is IRR interview with Sri Lankan novelist A. Sivanandan that speaks about anti-Muslim racism, but for the lead chapter's first sentence heavy duty sources should be used. Of course the discussion about racism can be handled in the article otherwise just like criticism. But there are pretty much no sources that define Islamophobia as racism, but as discrimination against Islam or adherents of Islam, Muslims. --Pudeo' 17:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It is confusing to use multiple sources. In my experience that occurs when none of the sources clearly support a quote so more are added in an endless process. We should only use the Meer and Noorani report because it summarizes the understanding of the topic. Having looked at the paper again, I see that the issue may not be as clear as I thought. It could be that usually/sometimes described as racism would be more accurate. TFD (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, it seems that both you and Liftarn (see above) are arguing for Meer and Noorani as authoritative. As Pudeo has pointed out, they classify it as a form of cultural racism and distinguish it from physical racism.[5] If you are going to go their route you need to put the word cultural in from of racism because the reader will have no idea that that is what they are talking about. But cultural racism is highly controversial and, as has been pointed out, isn't even in wikipedia. To have this in the body of the article is one thing but to have this in the lead as a defining characteristic is questionable. And it still doesn't show why we should change this article from the previous consensus. What's changed since Runnymede? When did it change and is it now the new paradigm? You may be right but to change the previous consensus and establish a new consensus we need to hear the arguments about what in the references support this paradigm shift. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Islamophobia does not have one single definition. Some define it as a form of racism (with no prefix), some as cultural racism (and we could expand the racism article with that as well), some do not define it as racism, but as something related. Often it is compared with antisemitism that also may or may not be a form of racism. This is reflected in the lead when it says "prejudice or racism". // Liftarn (talk)

The Runnymede summary does not actually call it racism and the Meer and Noorani report, which explains how Islamophobia has been interpreted, does not say that there is consensus that it is racism. It could be that some Isamophobes are racist, but others are not. TFD (talk) 09:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Others have made the differentiation that islamophobia is the theoretical part while anti-Muslim racism is when islamophobia is put into action. // Liftarn (talk)

Prior to World War II, there was an organization in the United States called the German-American Bund. People who joined were often German, but they could have been pro-German or joining for business or social reasons. The organization supported Hitler, which was considered fine by most Americans at the time. When the events of 1939 revealed that the nature of Hitler was not good, he became unpopular and so did the organization. Would an anti-Bund feeling then be described as "racist?" They were probably all Caucasians! But some were of English, Scot, etc. ancestry.

I think this discussion/article is trying to assign a "racist" label to "Islamophobia" because it sounds pejorative. Not because it is accurate. We take most of articles from the media, but we don't have to use what they use as "facts." They are frequently pov. Student7 (talk) 15:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Islamophobia in NOT racism. Racism is about physical appearance (ethnicity, ie not changeable). Islamophobia (a type of anti-theism) is about ideas in your head (changeable). Saying that it is 'racism' is lazy PC bandwagon stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.112.20.173 (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Racism?

General discussion

Muslims aren't race, so how can it be racism? --Xumbar (talk) 05:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Because several reliable sources say so, usually because of using essentialism as a criterion. See also the article on Racism. benjamil ^talk/_edits 07:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

No consensus was reached (see Islam is Racism section above). The sources that use racism may be undue weight. The debate didn't end with a consensus; thus the article should be labeled POV. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree that it's undue when it's got three peer-reviewed articles backing it, one book less than "hatred or irrational fear", which is the next part. Also, references 43 (Poynting) and 50 (Benbassa) defines it and identifies it as partly racism, respectively. benjamil ^talk/_edits 19:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Didn't they define it as a form of cultural racism and less evidently racial in nature? --Pudeo' 21:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but isn't that what's central in this question? Cultural racism is also racism, at least in a lot of authors' opinions. In the same way that islamophobia doesn't denote a psychiatric disorder, even though it has the suffix "-phobia", racism doesn't necessarily have anything to do with "races". The original definition of racism is outdated, and has been renewed as the "race" category has been steadily more discredited. The word racism, even if the term that was originally used to construct it has left the academic vocabulary, has evolved to describe negative attitudes and discrimination based on essentialising stereotypes. It is true that this usage of the term is not universally acknowledged, but it is nonetheless in such widespread use that this interpretation needs to be prominently placed. Benbassa takes something like a middle position here, when she argues that islamophobia conflates "anti-muslimism" and ethnic stereotyping. But this conflation is also present in many of the most influential islamophobic discourses, as well as in antisemitism (Is it racism? I would say yes.), so it's really no wonder. This is also probably the reason why some of the obviously non-racist critics of Islam have felt the need to point out that there is a conflation, when attacked as islamophobes. Anyway, I guess the best way to settle it would be to find some sourced quotes discussing the topic. Several of the existing references probably treat it.

I don't think it's a good idea to let editors' opinions of the question decide the matter, at least not given the strong sources that we have.

Best regards, benjamil ^talk/_edits 23:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not until the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the racism article do we read: Some definitions of racism also include discriminatory behaviors and beliefs based on cultural, national, ethnic, caste, or religious stereotypes. If it isn't yet accepted on the racism page as mainstream or common, how can it be so here? This is an esoteric usage at best. If it were widespread there would certainly be criticism of this usage by those who reserve the word racism for physical racism.

This view of Islamophobia should be in the body of the article but not in the lead. It's a view of an extreme minority. I may find this so-called ‘‘cultural racism’’ absurd. If you decide to condemn prejudice against carpenters as ‘‘occupation racism’’ or condemn hatred of chronic liars as ‘‘character racism’’ you’re free to do so. But as an editor we should report usage--absurd or not--as it is. If you can show an acceptance of this usage in the context of Islamophobia that warrants equal treatment with previous definitions of Islamophobia we should report it.Jason from nyc (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

As long as there are just as many, or nearly as many, sources in the article supporting the view that islamophobia is a form of racism, it should be described as such. Although there is some leeway in WP:BALANCE for editor judgment about what constitutes balance, we should strive to resolve a question as difficult as this by finding comments in literature. Barring that, a quantitative overview of the sources would be far more helpful than the number of IP editors opining this or that. I'll write some headings below, where sources can be provided, and I suggest we take it from there. I also suggest that we only use peer-reviewed sources, as otherwise, we'll have to relate to a veritable ocean of polemics.

Best regards, benjamil ^talk/_edits 08:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe that Jason is right in that sectarian prejudice and bigotry is not analogous to racism. If the article defined 'Islamophobia' as "sectarian prejudice" then this semantic issue wouldn't be so problematic, inclusion of a discussion of racist sub-texs by peer-reviewed sources notwithstanding. That said, I'm not entirely convinced of Jason's claim that "Many of the main critics of Islam and Islamism are of the same racial background that Muslims come from," but I am glad to see that he's not denying the existence of a racist subtext in certain cases.Jemiljan (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Update I have now added the sources from reference 1 that assert or discuss whether islamophobia is racism. Three of them are available in full text online. The one by Schiffer and Wagner has an abstract which is so to-the-point that I've listed it without accessing it. When I get access to the pay-walled articles, I will revise the categorisation. The open access articles also contain references to several other sources. There is apparently a rich literature discussing the subject, and this should fuel both an expansion of the "links to other ideologies"-section and hopefully provide a succinct quote that can be used in the lead. Best regards, benjamil ^talk/_edits 08:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Referring to Islamophobia as a form of 'racism' is too narrow and ill-defined. It does constitute a form of sectarian prejudice and even bigotry. While there may be racial sub-texts, strictly speaking, racism is a form of prejudice focused on ethnicity, not towards members of a religion. While the rise of "Islamophobia" is analogous to the anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic sentiments, the latter is often portrayed as racism, as the religion and race are inseparable, but the former is not. So I understand the point of confusion. Yes, there were racial subtexts (specifically anti-Irish and anti-Italian) to anti-Catholic sentiments by Nativists in the 19th century, but the prevailing sentiment was nevertheless one focused on religion. So basically, I think if you change the word "racism" to "sectarian prejudice", it would be semantically more correct. Citing articles that justify this definition is simply an argument from authority, and not a valid argument in and of itself. A more NPOV approach would be more inclusive to discuss a range of views and definitionsJemiljan (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

No, citing reliable sources is Wikipedia policy. Inventing own terms instead of using what the sources say would be original research. // Liftarn (talk)

This is getting old. Islam is not a race. A race is something you're born into: it's hereditary on a genetic base. People are born into races; no-one is born into a religion. You can convert to be Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, but you can't convert to be Black or Asian. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 09:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Update 2 I've done a night's worth of literature mining, mostly using a simple Google Scholar search for "islamophobia" and limiting results to the period 2011-2012. I've skimmed the articles that appeared most relevant as reviews and added them to a new subsection of reviews. They all identify the central aspect of islamophobia in a way that can be described by the definition put forward in Bleich's paper. The Runnymede Trust's 1997 report is also heavily cited in these reviews and in the articles previously listed. I suggest that the definition in the article relies on Bleich's and the Runnymede Trust's, identifying them both. It should also at the very least mention that these definitions are not universally agreed upon and possibly (what appears to be) significant minority viewpoints, that Islamophobia is a form of racism and that it is rhetorical tool to avoid legitimate criticism of Islam. The last two points may, in my opinion, also be moved to the article's main body. Among the critics cited, Kenan Malik appears very frequently, he should be represented in the main body. The review by Bravo Lopéz adds a lot of very interesting material that should go into the history section, extending the term's history backwards by at least 50 years. Personally, I'm swamped in work for the next couple of weeks, but after that may get the time needed to do the improvements. Anyone wanting to get more information to get started before that are invited to contact me.benjamil ^talk/_edits 00:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Benjamil, if several "reliable" sources refer to "Islamophobia" as racism, then those sources obviously are not reliable.

Sources

Review articles

Extended content

Bleich, E. (2011). "What Is Islamophobia and How Much Is There? Theorizing and Measuring an Emerging Comparative Concept." American Behavioral Scientist 55(12): 1581-1600. (pay-walled, abstract:) Islamophobia is an emerging comparative concept in the social sciences. Yet there is no widely accepted definition of Islamophobia that permits systematic comparative and causal analysis. This article explores how the term Islamophobia has been deployed in public and scholarly debates, emphasizing that these discussions have taken place on multiple registers. It then draws on research on concept formation, prejudice, and analogous forms of status hierarchies to offer a usable social scientific definition of Islamophobia as indiscriminate negative attitudes or emotions directed at Islam or Muslims. The article discusses the types of indicators that are most appropriate for measuring Islamophobia as well as the benefits of concept development for enabling comparative and causal analysis. Bravo López, F. (2010). "Towards a definition of Islamophobia: approximations of the early twentieth century." Ethnic and Racial Studies 34(4): 556-573. (pay-walled, abstract:) This paper contributes to the debate on the meaning of the term ‘Islamophobia’. It proposes an examination of the early twentieth-century approaches to Islamophobia, both the term and the phenomenon. The aim is to show that the phenomenon had already been identified at the end of the nineteenth century and that it had been defined by the beginning of the twentieth. That definition could throw some light on the current debate about the meaning of the term. Kaya, A. (2011). Islamophobia as a form of governmentality: Unbearable weightiness of the politics of fear B. R. Fryklund, Erica. Malmö, Malmö University, Malmö Institute for Studies of Migration, Diversity and Welfare. 57p. Islamophobia is actually what we call “cultural racism” Comment These are the journal article reviews that I have found treating the topic. There are also books, but I haven't been able to access them. All agree that islamophobia is not well-defined in current academic discourse, but all also stress that the core content of the term is an indiscriminate/essentialising hostility toward Muslims and Islam, and that although the term is lacking, it is here to stay. They advance three different positions, which are all well-referenced in other literature. Contact me by e-mail on my user page to get further information on the pay-walled articles. benjamil talk/edits 23:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Bleich

Extended content
I see that Bleich is currently being represented as a critic in the article. After reading his paper, I do not agree that this reflects his position well. Yes, he criticises the term, but he also advances a definition that he believes will make it useful. This clearly belongs in a discussion of the definition and not in the criticism section. benjamil talk/edits 00:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Specifically discussing whether islamophobia is racism or not

Extended content

All of the review articles listed above, as well as Meer, N. and Modood, T. (2009): The Multicultural State We’re In: Muslims, ‘Multiculture’ and the ‘Civic Re-balancing’ of British Multiculturalism Meer, N. and Noorani, T. (2008): A sociological comparison of anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim sentiment in Britain Imhoff, R. and Recker J. (2012? publication pending?): Differentiating Islamophobia:Introducing a new scale to measure Islamoprejudice and Secular Islam Critique

Imhoff and Recker

Extended content

The Imhoff/Recker article is worth discussing and referencing. The authors make many distinctions in their initial discussion. First they point out that “its definition is highly contested”. Indeed they write "few concepts have been debated as heatedly over the last ten years as the term Islamophobia." This alone should be reflected in the beginning of our article. They note that two different phenomena are conflated: racism and secular criticism. In the first case it is simply “anti-Arab racism” with a new name. In this case the “enemy is not a faith or a culture but a people.” At this point it is worth reminding Americans that Islamic populations in European nations tend to be from a single nation. In Germany, Turks are the main group. In France, Muslims are mostly Arabs. In the UK, Pakistani Muslims (often just called Asians) are the target of bigotry. Thus, I’m sure the authors are right that racial animosity is often disguised as religious animosity. But the authors note that there is also a liberal secular critique. This is an “enlightened – and secular – critique of religious practices (like veiling, circumcision, and the ritual slaughtering of animals). The proponents of such criticism claim that ‘such practices should be prevented not because they are non-Christian but because they represent a culture that promotes extreme submission to religion and, hence does not allow individuals to subscribe to secularist values’” In sum, the authors distinguish between racial prejudice and religious critique. They believe the first is more common. But that’s a sociological question, not a question of concept. They invent another neologism to distinguish between a racist attitude towards a minority that happens to be Muslim from the negative viewpoint of the religion. In the USA the situation is different. Many of the main critics of Islam and Islamism are of the same racial background that Muslims come from. I could give a long list. And Muslims are from a far more diverse racial (or better yet regional) backgrounds. Thus, the word may have different contexts on each side of the Atlantic. That being said it suggest we should point out this distinction in the beginning of our article. I have no doubt that racism exists and some racists will cloak their animosity towards a people with religious criticism. The two, however, are different. Prejudice against a racial (or regional) group is different than prejudice against a religion. Since the authors note the debate over which prejudice “Islamophobia” should refer to, we should note in the lead that the term is controversial and unsettled. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC) I agree that it is an interesting piece of work. As you say, it lists two main camps of critics of the term. Those who believe it's superfluous, as it denotes the same as racism, and those who believe that it is a rhetorical tool to stamp as racist those who aim to criticise the practices of a religion. It lists no less than five references for the claim that it denotes racism. This should be used. I'll add those which are not already on the list above. It also refers to a number of sources that document its use to conflate. Still, it's important to remember that it is only one paper. Since it's experimental, the conclusions made there regarding the experiments should be treated as a primary source. When it comes to the situation in the U.S., you are probably very right to note that the criticism of the term Islamophobia comes from people with a wide variety of backgrounds. However, in the sources listed so far, at least Love and Salaita's work seems to imply that the racial component is at work in the U.S., as well. Also, the secularist critique of conflation is very present in Europe, so I think there is reason to believe that both discourses are quite transatlantic. As for what the lead should say and consequences for the article body, I have no problem with a sentence that makes it clear that the term is controversial. However, we should also consult the other sources. Also: Feel free to edit as we discuss, per WP:BRD. benjamil talk/edits 11:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Describing islamophobia as racism

Extended content

Schiffer, S. and Wagner, C. (2011): Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia - new enemies, old patterns. Love, E. (2009). Confronting Islamophobia in the United States: framing civil rights activismamong Middle Eastern Americans. Patterns of Prejudice, 43, 401-425. Halliday, F. (1999). ‘Islamophobia’ reconsidered. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 22, 892-902. Salaita, S. (2006). Beyond orientalism and Islamophobia – 9/11, anti-Arab racism, and themythos of national pride. Cr- the New # Centennial Review, 6, 245-266. Semati, M. (2010). Islamophobia, culture and race in the age of empire. Cultural Studies, 24,256-275. Modood, T., & Ahmad, F. (2007). British Muslim perspectives on multiculturalism. Theory,Culture & Society, 24, 187-213 Poynting, S. and V. Mason (2007). "The resistible rise of Islamophobia." Journal of Sociology 43(1): 61-86. Webman, E. (2012). "Discourses on Antisemitism and Islamophobia in Arab Media." European Societies 14(2): 222-239.

Describing islamophobia as rhetorical tool to avoid criticism

Extended content

Semati, M. (2010). Islamophobia, culture and race in the age of empire. Cultural Studies, 24,256-275. Abu Sway, M. (2006). Islamophobia: Meaning, Manifestation, Causes. In H. Schenker & Z. Abu-Zayyad (Eds.) Islamophobia and Anti-Semitism (pp. 13-23). Princeton: Markus Wiener. Fekete, L. (2004). Anti-Muslim racism and the European security state. Race & Class, 46, 3-29. Özyürek, E. (2005). The politics of cultural unification, secularism, and the place of Islam in thenew Europe. American Ethnologist, 32, 509-512.

Sources for review

Extended content
Meer, N. (2006): "Get off your knees"

Racism: dubious - discuss

I hate to bring this up again, but a red chair is not purple just because somebody can find a “reputable source” saying it is. You don't need a reputable source; you need logic. Don't confuse islamophobia with anti-Arabism. An ideology can only be racist if it's centered on race-based dislike; islamophobia is centered on a specific type of religion-based dislike, not race-based dislike; ergo, islamophobia is not racist. I rest my case. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

1. On Wikipedia, logic is subordinate to reliable sources, especially with regard to defining terms such as this.
2. Although I find your morphological literalism to be charming, language doesn't work like that. Terms get their meaning through usage, not through an analysis of their constituent morphemes (although that frequently plays a role, as well). You can't say that something isn't cool, simply because it isn't cold.
3. In the present case, it's more subtle. Several of the papers discussing this are quite interesting, and I would be happy to share them with you. Send me an e-mail through my user page if you're interested. benjamil ^talk/_edits 21:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

We don't need to discuss this everytime someone brings up his personal opinion (unsupported by sources). Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Islamophobia is the recognized term for racism and hatred against Muslims, as demonstrated by numerous reliable sources. Which should really be the end of this discussion. JonFlaune (talk) 13:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You can say the same thing a thousand times over but there is no source to prove a phobia in the context that is given. I doubt many would argue that there isn't a Phobia of Islam because I am sure there is a Phobia of everything including butterflies. But there is real fear and there is a Phobia at least attempt to mention the real accepted fears of Islam. This article is bogus as it is written.

--OxAO (talk) 22:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia tends to follow the elite political narrative rather than the commonsensical or logical. Racism has the most strength in shutting down criticism of this religion and so fits the elite narrative better. Commonsense is for conversation but print must be politically correct. Don't get the idea Wikipedia will actually attempt to open minds on anything, you'll be disappointed (and flamed).--Mastershallow 13:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Your criticism (and Everything Is Numbers’s criticism) of the logic is sound but besides the point. If the concept is inherently illogical or absurd it is the editors responsibility to report usage, not recommend a better idea. Of course, there will be reliable critics who will point out the problems with the word as currently used. The question remains: is racism part of a mainstream definition? Jason from nyc (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I don’t believe the editors have shown that it is a widely accepted definition. There may be fringes in academia that define Islamophobia as racism; and some use a new concept of racism (cultural racism) to advocate such a change (and that should be mentioned in the body, not lead of the article). A quick review of the archives shows this debate has been going on for over seven years. That there are references isn’t enough if this is a fringe definition; positioning it in the lead is ‘‘undue weight.’’

I didn’t revert Liftarn’s edit according to BRD because while I’m not convinced it is right (he’s been arguing this for 7 years) I’m not convinced it is wrong. By ‘‘wrong’’ I mean common accepted usage by a non-fringe sources. I believe this still needs to be discussed. This is a major change and we should seek a consensus by discussion rather than by default. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I haven't had the time to follow up on it for a couple of days now, but in my opinion the way to settle whether it is fringe or not is to look at the literature. I don't believe the sources currently mentioned in the previous thread give the whole picture, it's just based on the references in the lead and the references in one of those articles again. However, I do believe that it is premature to assign it as WP:FRINGE. If editors posting here have institutional access to article databases it would be very welcome if they wanted to help in sorting this out. benjamil ^talk/_edits 14:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I’d welcome participation from other editors. I’d especially appreciate a review article that sums up the current theories and gives some idea of their acceptance in academia ... and also in the public debate. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Very good. I'll see what I can do, and post it if I find anything. benjamil ^talk/_edits 16:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that this issue is receiving the attention it deserves. Hopefully, the problem will be solved soon, even though the fact that this discussion has been going unresolved for some lengthy 7 years, as amusing as the fact may be, ignites pessimism. I dare to question whether this problem can be solved by citing a source. The request to cite sources is one of the three pillars in Wikipedian content policy, implemented to prevent groundless claims and original research from invading Wikipedia articles. Original research is surely unacceptable by Wikipedian policy, but “original research” only refers to empirical matters and not to mathematically- and/or logically-verifiable matters. Otherwise, we would have to cite a source proving that 2+2=4. I just want to add a statement about my suspicion that the only reason why we are having this discussion is because of confusion between race and religion—e.g., Arabs vs. Muslims, Jews vs. Judaists, Indians vs. Hindus—very similar in its nature, according to my personal observation and original research, to confusion between gender and sexual orientation. This confusion has grown so out of hand that at least one anti-Islamistic organization holds the following as its motto: “Racism is the lowest form of human stupidity, but Islamophobia is the height of common sense.” Everything Is Numbers (talk) 02:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Islamophobia by Chris Allen probably is the book for you, Jason. It ends with an effort to redefine Islamophobia (because, as Allen writes in this paper, both the [Runnymede] report and its model have failed to stand the test of time and a detailed analysis highlights a number of serious flaws). Cheers, Ankimai (talk) 21:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Related categories nominated for deletion

Also, several other Islamophobia categories are encompassed in the nomination. __meco (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This article is the most disgusting thing I have seen on Wikipedia. It is 100% biased towards a viewpoint on a concept that does not exist. Religion is de facto ideology, and can be disagreed with, held in contempt, you name it. That doesn't make the counter-position a "phobia." Even worse this links to several other articles. Wikipedia is supposed to be about facts, not Islamic propaganda. Stop babbling about what you're going to do with this filthy article and just delete it, and all the links, and re-write several of the articles "Islamophobia" links to. This is shameful that the editors in charge of Wikipedia let it get this far. Giantfrogs (talk) 07:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WrongNo555 (talk • contribs)

criticism section

the criticism section is massive and undue. community assistance is needed in order to achieve balance and npov, as per wp:due, wp:npov and wp:notnewspaper.-- altetendekrabbe  11:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the criticism section looks undue. It should be reduced at least to 50% of its current length. Criticism of this term is largely a fringe phenomenon, as the term has been very established for two decades or so, used officially by all the relevant international bodies. While it is always possible to dig up some critics, regardless of the subject, there isn't any significant criticism of this term today. One critic here and there shouldn't be given half of the article to present their views. JonFlaune (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

That's nonsense. Mainstream academics who are fighting bigotry are on record stating their limitations to the term. These are the key sources for the criticism section. Secondary commentators add popular and widely read sources. "International bodies" are political, not scholarly sources. Their record is laughable [[6]] unless you think the New York Times is a far right fringe organization. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

debate before the rfc

criticism section

the section is now massively improved, thanks to pudeo's efforts. however, we still don't have balance, mainly due to the "misconceived"-section where sam harris has been given undue weight. his "psychological disorder"-critique is similar to other, more academic, sources that are already present. we don't need duplicates as these are limitless. on the other hand, there is also a limitless literature criticizing people like harris and his ideas about islamophobia... and it won't serve our purpose of writing a balanced encyclopedic article by including all the sam harris critics too. by removing the "misconceived"-section the balance is restored, and we can proceed by improving the article.-- altetendekrabbe  09:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The other criticisms question the excessiveness of the concept or excessive usage while Harris and Kimball question the concept itself. For them it is an invalid concept not merely a misused concept. They both question the motivation for the invention of such a concept. Harris has participated in the public debate and as you point out it is a two way debate such as we find here [7]. One could certainly include Christopher Hitchens as a noted public intellectual that partakes in the public debate. Both Harris and Hitchens (critical of religion in general) are significant participants in the debate and bring forth another kind of objection. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Now that racism is part of the definition and the defining introductory sentence has "or" used twice it is clear that the word is in contention and highly controversial. We need the criticism section to reflect that more than ever. We should restore mention of dissent and criticism in the lead section or paragraph. We might want to consider distributing the criticism through out the article, as you started to do, but this suggests a redesign of the whole article. This is a major discussion. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

distributing the criticism throughout is probably the best way to obtain balance as it makes it easier to define the reasonable weight to be allocated.-- altetendekrabbe  12:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

How would one lay out the whole article? A few edits ago you change the layout to mirror homophobia and now you want to abandon that? This seems like an ambitious overhaul. We should debate the new layout. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: your most recent edit. Almost all the criticisms are about definition. “Misuse” is about scope, i.e. how the concept is defined with respect to the proper boundaries of the concept and how it is used to broadly. “Misconceived” is about faulty definition. “Proposed alternatives” ... Let’s remember that in general the critics aren’t arguing that there isn’t such a thing as bigotry. They have differences in where the defining line is drawn. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

i still feel that the "proposed alternatives"-section does not belong to the criticism section, [8] as it's not mere criticism but also a concrete proposal of another name. overall, even without the "proposed alternatives"-section, the criticism section is undue, disturbing npov and balance, mainly due to the misconceived-section consisting om sam harris. as i pointed out above, there is also a limitless literature criticizing people like harris and his ideas about islamophobia... and it won't serve our purpose of writing a balanced encyclopedic article by including all the sam harris critics too. that's not encyclopedic. summaries are better for our purpose than full quotes that would invite counter-qoutes and so on.

my suggestion is to move the "proposed alternatives"-subsection to another section, like "definition"-section, and remove the misconceived section and move sam harris' criticism to somewhere else (not as a quote but summary like : "some denounce the concept altogether, like sam harris etc").

if you take a look at the homophobia-page you'll notice that its criticism-section is smaller than the islamophobia-criticism-section, and that homophobia-page is also longer than the islamophobia-page. the homophobia-page is balanced, the islamophobia-page is certainly not.-- altetendekrabbe  15:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you call an individual or group who has irrational fear of Western civilisation or (what was once called) Christendom? It seems as prevalent as the phenomenon identified in this article but I can't think of a term with such a currency as the one we are discussing. This perhaps is why I'm suspicious of all articles like this. They belong in a dictionary at best. Mastershallow 13:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keizo Ibata (talk • contribs)

POV-section: Criticism of definition

Please see Talk:Islamophobia#Bleich in the Racism? section above. benjamil ^talk/_edits 00:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

yes, bleich is misrepresented. i would also make the "proposed alternatives"-section a subsection of "definition". it really belongs there as it will follow up runnymede's definition. in addition, the "misuse"-section is misconceived. clearly, the term has been misused but so have terms like "racism" as well. however, there is no "misuse"-section at the racism page or other similar pages.-- altetendekrabbe  16:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

In a trivial sense, every criticism is a criticism of the definition, i.e. what the concept means and its scope. The emphasis of each critic is different and it helps organize the sections rather than what we had before. “Proposed alternatives” involves salvaging the concept while “misconceived” emphasizes abandoning the project as hopeless. “Misuse” emphasizes the danger of a poorly defined concept. The general “definition” section just lays out overall concerns and is a preamble to the other more specific concerns with the very concept. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Why was “Racism:dubious-discuss” removed without warning?

Has there been no violation of Wikipedia policy? Everything Is Numbers (talk) 02:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This seems straight forward

Adding this to the Criticism section seemed straight forward. Why is there an objection?

Other studies report similar widespread challenges in the use and meaning of the term.

ref: [9] Jason from nyc (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree I don't understand how this is misrepresentation.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 05:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

New attempts to delete templates and categories

We have a case of an admin deleting the categories with no regard for the obvious consensus to keep them, counting policy-based arguments. Relevant discussion here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 August 11.

There is also now an attempt to delete the template (although it was already decided to keep it), here Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_August_10#Template:Islamophobia. JonFlaune (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)