Islam B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion: Interfaith B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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"."[1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. [2] 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[3] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

General discussion

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for your time and labour. --E4024 (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sources

Review articles

Bleich

Specifically discussing whether islamophobia is racism or not

Imhoff and Recker

Describing islamophobia as racism

Describing islamophobia as rhetorical tool to avoid criticism

Sources for review

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"I dare to question whether this problem can be solved by citing a source." I agree because "Islamophobia is racism is an *opinion*. A source, however reliable, cannot transform an opinion into a fact. It should be worded "Some writers (or scholars or experts or whatever, citing exactly who is meant) see Islamophobia as a form of racism" or something along those lines, not just say "Islamophobia is racism".Smeat75 (talk) 03:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we could solve this problem very easily by just thinking about whether we would consider for example anti-mormonism to be a form of racism. Probably not. Or say Anti-Pagan discrimination. Again probably not. What we can say with definate accuracy is that Islamaphobia is closely related to anti-arabism and therefore can contain racial connotations. However Islamophobia is not usually racism. And comparing it to antisemitism isn't quite the same thing. Historically Jews are considered an ethnic identity as much as a religious identity. So much so that if one is born of Jewish parents they are automatically considered Jewish no matter which religion they practice. The reason why antisemitism is considered racism is because the world uses the word Jew to refer to both ethnic and religious identity. Now lets just say we have two Muslim parents. They give birth to a daughter. She grows up and converts to Mormonism and cuts all ties from Islam. Is she still Muslim. No. If a Jew did the same thing they would still be ethnically Jewish and depending on which parent and which denomination could also still be considered religiously Jewish.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we use reliable sources, not thought experiments. And the sources say islamophobia is a form of racism. // Liftarn (talk)

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

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) [reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [[4]] unless you think the New York Times is a far right fringe organization. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [5]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

i still feel that the "proposed alternatives"-section does not belong to the criticism section, [6] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.^[1][2]

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

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

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)[reply]

This discussion may be of interest to editors here too: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gates of Vienna. It's the blog idolised by Breivik.[8] JonFlaune (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smeat75 raises an important point above when he/she says:

"I dare to question whether this problem can be solved by citing a source." I agree because "Islamophobia is racism is an *opinion*. A source, however reliable, cannot transform an opinion into a fact. It should be worded "Some writers (or scholars or experts or whatever, citing exactly who is meant) see Islamophobia as a form of racism" or something along those lines, not just say "Islamophobia is racism".Smeat75 (talk) 03:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

There is an ambiguity in the lead sentence that I didn’t realize before Smeat75 wrote the above. Does the first sentence express the definition of an concept or express an empirical finding? If it expresses a concept it implies by the citations that “authorities use the term Islamophobia to mean X, Y, or Z.” If it expresses an empirical finding it implies that “authorities claim that Islamophobia is factually found to be A, B, C.” In the first case we are stating a definition and it is a tautology. The term just means X, Y, or Z. In the second case we are using a defined word to attach additional predicates to a word that already has a meaning and it is true (if it is true) by empirical evidence.

The article should make clear what it is doing. Since the word needs to defined first and foremost, the first sentence should be putting forth the definition. As we see from the current form of the sentence, in which the word “or” is use twice, there are several usages of the term. It currently says:

Islamophobia describes prejudice or racism against, hatred or irrational fear of Muslims.

To make it clear that this is a definition and that the word has several usages (hence the word "or" twice) it should read:

Islamophobia denotes a prejudice, hatred or irrational fear of Muslims and defined as a form racism by several authors.

The citation explains who defines the term in which manner while the body of the article elaborates. I still don’t concede that the authors who define it as a form of racism are more than a minority and possibly WP:Fringe and therefore the first sentence gives this WP:UNDUE weight. But I await further evidence.

Jason from nyc (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS. One could argue that the lead can be shortened to

Islamophobia denotes a prejudice, hatred or irrational fear of Muslims or racism in the Muslim context.

since the citation explains that several authors define the word in this manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason from nyc (talk • contribs) 12:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jason - do you have reliable sources that explicitly say that Islamophobia is prejudice against Muslims, but is not a form of racism? Do you have reliable sources that make statements that the view that it is a form of racism is a fringe view? What reasons do these sources give for saying that it is a fringe view?--Toddy1 (talk) 06:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good questions. The main source for the article, i.e. Runnymede. See [9]. It says: “Racial violence is all of a piece therefore with anti-Muslim prejudice.” It argues that legal measures designed to address racial violence “is no longer adequate.” The implication is that religion, as an factor for persecution, is another dimension in addition to racism that requires government statutes to protect the victims of hatred. Thus, it doesn’t define Islamophobia as racism but argues that racism is involved. It's main point is to argue that religious bias needs to be addressed. If it were racism, no new measures would be needed. If that is the case racism should be mentioned in the body but not the lead.

Remember, the question isn’t that some (or even most) who are prejudiced against the religion may also be prejudiced against a racial group. As I pointed out above, in many European nations the Islamic population are mostly from a single region or nation. Thus, it may be an empirical conclusion, but not by definition, that those prejudiced against Muslims are prejudiced towards the race of Muslims in the cases where race is concomitant with religion. But in some nations it is not.

Several authors point out that anti-Islamic groups, like those of the counter-jihad differ from traditional far-right groups in that they aren’t antisemitic, authoritarian, or focused on race (see Paul Jackson on the EDL). I pointed out that the primary Islam-critical writers popular in the USA tend to come from the regions heavily populated by Muslims. Writes like Robert Spencer, Joseph Farah, and Bat Ye’or are of Middle Eastern Extraction. Then you have ex-Muslims like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, bin Warraq, Irshad Manji, Walid Shoebat, Wafa Sultan, etc. Subsequent writers were influenced by the primary authors. Thus, the origins of anti-Islamic thought in the USA is not race-based. Thus, if the article is not specifically about Europe, a definition that includes race makes no sense. The authors that include race as part of the definition are generally more recent authors (we have a list above) and mostly European. They may want to conclude something about Islamophobia in their locations but to make it part of the definition is a recent minority viewpoint.

One way we can see that this is a minority viewpoint is to look at the review literature that discusses the debate on the definition. See the articles at the lead of the Criticism section. They debate the possible meanings of the term. If racism was one of the main possibilities they would be discussing it. Consequently, we can conclude that this is a fringe definition. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: This last point isn't strictly speaking correct in that while Chris Allen doesn't discuss defining Islam as a form of racism, Imhoff and Recker do. The Imhoff article is more recent. In the section "Old wine in a new bottle" they mention those who think that Islamophobia should be considered a form of racism. However, it is clear from the article that this is a criticism of the current usage and thus it is not part of the mainstream definition. The beginning of their article is an brief review before they turn their focus on an empirical study. Chris Allen is more comprehensive but it is 6 years out of date. This gives the impression that racism was not part of the definition nor seriously considered as part of the definition until the last few years. It is a contention of critics that it should be part of the definition but I see no widespread acceptance in general reviews of the terminology. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it's not a fringe definition. there are several academic sources which define islamophobia as anti-muslim racism. i am currently reviewing several of them. there is clearly a "racial" content in the prevailing anti-muslim sentiment.-- altetendekrabbe  20:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not whether there is clearly a "racial" content in the prevailing anti-muslim sentiment but whether the word Islamophobia denotes prejudice based on religion or denotes prejudice based on race against those who happen to be Muslim. It’s a question about the meaning of the term not the people who are biased. The first sentence should make the definition, not subsequent findings that add dimensions to the subject. The reader should be told what the common definitions are. Jason from nyc (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@jason, i don't see the problem. the concept is evolving, and is currently it also denotes prejudice based on "race". many muslims do in fact define themselves, or self-identify, as a "race", see e.g. meer&noorani(2008).-- altetendekrabbe  21:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What race is that? Jason from nyc (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

meer&noorani(2008).-- altetendekrabbe  22:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't answer the question, does he? [10] What race? Jason from nyc (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now there is a source in the article that explicitly says that Islamophobia is not a form of racism. Now what are we going to do. I think it is important to discuss the connections between the anti-religious Islamophobia and the racist anti-arabism but we must not confuse them as the same thing. Now unless someone can tell me which ethnic group every single Muslim in the world belongs to we can not consider Islamophobia to be a form of racism. That would be like saying Anti-Mormonism is a form of racism.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 20:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some excellent points. There is a difference between religious bigotry and racial bigotry even when some people have both. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The authors who define Islamophobia as racism are in the minority. General reviews of the terminology so far (and that can change) either fail to consider this definition or mention it as controversial. We've seen no consensus for "racism" as part of a mainstream definition. That some (if not most) Islamophobes are racists isn't denied. That Islamophobia (prejudice against a religion) is defined as a form of racism has not been supported as a widely accepted definition. I have moved the racism discussion to the section Links to other ideologies where it fits perfectly. If I'm wrong, show me. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it doesn't belong to the WP:Lead that for sure--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. This is a question of the WP:Lead. Thanks for reminding us. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a wikibreak to finish some research articles I'm working on, but I feel the need to make myself heard here. I would like to make the following points:

1. The current literature review that editors have contributed to on this article has a numerical overweight of articles that in some way state that Islamophobia is a form of racism. Some (I don't have the time to check the balance right now) state that this part of the definition is controversial. This is not an argument to exclude that part of the definition, it is an argument to mention that this part of the definition is controversial.
2. What sources are referenced in the criticism section does not have any bearing on a judgment of what constitutes a fringe view. The scholarly opinion that Islamophobia is a form of racism is clearly not fringe, based on the literature reviewed above.
3. Imhoff and Recker's paper is not a review article, it is a research article that has a brief review of literature included in order to discuss its findings.
4. The non-racist origins of a specific strain of alleged Islamophobia may have relevance to some parts of the lead, e.g. those discussing its current prevalence, if sufficiently notable, but whatever the origins of anti-Islamic thoughts in the U.S. are is not relevant to the discussion of what research literature says that Islamophobia is.
5. There is no need for Islamophobia's racist component to single out any one "race". The term does not have a scientific meaning when it comes to humans in a biological sense, but has a distinct meaning as a social construct, thus the answer to the question "Which race?" depends on context: Islamophobia may be racist if it leads to prejudice against anyone who "looks Muslim", in specific socio-geographical contexts including, but not limited to, people of Somali, Pakistani, Arab, Turkish and Kurdish heritage. Also, the fact that the specifics of local Islamophobic racism may vary does not exclude the possibility that Islamophobia is not in general a racist attitude against some group wherever it manifests. This is an exact analogy to antisemitism: It is racist whether the target in the specific context are Jews of Northern or Eastern European, Sephardic or Levantic heritage.~

I will return to regular editing in about a week. Best regards, benjamil ^talk/_edits 07:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge your intelligent responses to my concerns although I continue to doubt the conclusion. And look forward to your return. Let me remind everyone that this has been discussed in the “talk” for over seven years and it isn’t going away in a day. Let me briefly comment on the above for now before I forget.

Statistic weight tells us it belongs in the article but reviews by widely respected authorities (like Chris Allen) don’t list racism as a possible definition. There is still an important distinction between definition and further empirical knowledge. Some scholars are finding that the prejudice against Muslims in their countries is not based on religion but race (or nationality). The question remains: does this change the definition of Islamophobia or does this require the additional application of the term "racism" to attitudes of those with the prejudice?

Let me repeat this last point because I don’t think it has been understood or addressed. A definition states the essentials. To explain, let me use an analogy. For example, we can argue how to define “human being” but that is a separate discussion from an extensive exposition of all knowledge about human nature. Empirically if we later discover that human beings are normally born with an appendix we don’t rush to put this in the definition. If many people claim that “human beings are capable of learning special relativity or Euclidean geometry” these doesn’t become part of the definition. Even if we can apply the predicate X to all human beings it still doesn’t mean X should be in the definition. There continues to be a distinction between essentials and derivatives. Derivatives can be established by empirical means or subsequent reflection.

Now let me consider religious prejudice. In the USA there is a history of anti-Catholic prejudice. It was pronounced going back to the large influx of Irish-Catholics in the 1840s during the Potato Famine. This was considered religious bigotry. But there was a racist component as well. Bigots had a number of characteristics they would apply to those born Irish. Nevertheless, the concepts of religious prejudice (anti-Catholic) and racism (anti-Irish racism) remained separate conceptually even if they were combined in practice. Conceptual analysis requires analytical separation and clear terminology. Reality gives us phenomena with combined attributes.

All the major historic sources defined Islamophobia as a religious bigotry and there remains a need for such a word. In practice we will certainly find a combination of bigotries. Thus anti-Arab bigotry in France will certainly find racism combined with religious bigotry and ethnic bigotry. The same is true for anti-Pakistani bigotry in the UK or anti-Turk bigotry in Germany. The question of terminology remains.

There is still a distinction between a statement “Islamophobia is racism” as an empirical finding that Islamophobes in country X are really motivated by a racial animus and “Islamophobia is racism” as a definition of the term that replaces the previous definition of religious bias. Empirical findings that shed further light on the subject may not become part of the definition. Here care is needed to show that the experts aren’t merely adding findings but agreeing on a new definition--a new essential dimension that is part and parcel of the subject. So far the reviews of the terminology don’t lead me to believe that this definition is widely accepted as an alternative. What do other editors think? Jason from nyc (talk) 12:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However the sources say things like "The most important such form of cultural racism today is anti-Muslim racism, sometimes called Islamophobia." and "Islamophobia is characterized as neologism for racism". // Liftarn (talk)

Please not that the text in question read "prejudice or racism against, hatred or irrational fear of Muslims", not "prejudice and racism". // Liftarn (talk)

The fact that Wikipedia cites leftist cranks who believe that hatred of a religion is somehow racism is just ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.35.167.38 (talk) 05:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that strives to represent all topics from a neutral point of view. Not citing those sources simply because someone sees them as "leftist cranks" would not be approaching the article from a neutral point of view. However from my experience, hatred for a religion is almost always borderline racism anyway. Brough87 (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As there are so many sources still to discuss, I started a new subpage 'Sources'. I hope this helps, please feel free to add more sections. - Ankimai (talk) 08:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should have created it in your own user space. Anyway, I took a look at it and it's a list of opinions, but several of them are not qualified to have opinions on the subject so they are not really usable as sources. Examples include Nick Haslam (psychologist), David Goodhart (newspaper editor), Kenan Malik (neurobiologist), Pascal Bruckner (writer), Alan Johnson (also an editor). // Liftarn (talk)

Excellent source of the history and usage of the term Islamophobia. Remember that our job isn't to prescribe a rational definition for the term but report the existing usage as it is. The articles provided help to clarify how the term is used, the problem with its usage, and the trend that's currently evolving. There's much material to explore. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This argument about Islamophobia being racism is silly. Racism is limited to discrimination based on race and usually ethnicity and sometimes nationality. Islamophobia even when pursued against people who "look" Muslim is still based on a religious not a racial hierarchy. I will however admit that sometimes Islamophobia can have racial aspects but Islamophobia is not a race, ethnicity or nationality. I have a source from Coach Cesare Prandelli that claims that homophobia is racism. However we much be reasonable and remember that the word racism isn't always used correctly today as it should be. I guarantee if we asked actual Muslims if their children converted to Judaism, Christianity, or Hinduism if they would still be Muslim they would say No.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 09:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are several sources on three different times when homophobia is called racism.

http://nyc.indymedia.org/es/2009/12/108827.html http://www.gladyshardy.com/blog/brack9cgxe/euro-2012-antonio-cassano-says-he-hopes-there-are-no-gay-players-italy-s-roster http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/4402825/Some-things-are-more-important-than-football.html http://apilgrimstales.blogspot.com/2009/08/from-jewish-peace-news-more-palestinian.html zinelibrary.info/files/PinkandBlack3Final2.pdf http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/08/13/italys-summer-of-homophobia/ http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/351345/20120612/antonio-cassano-italy-squad-gays-euro-2012.htm http://www.aswatgroup.org/article/150-attendant-aswats-2nd-conference-active-voices http://soccernewsday.com/world/r/303174/prandelli-homophobia-is-racism-

I have also found sources that say that classim, sexism and speciesism are forms of racism and that there is racism against short, left-handed, homeless and fat people.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 09:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you cannot compare these so-called sources with academic secondary ones. please read our guidelines on reliable sources. in addition, you use these low-grade sources about homophobia/soccer to infer a conclusion about islamophobia! please read our guidelines on original research also. i suggest you self-revert.-- altetendekrabbe  10:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem there are some criticism of the term so we can't say that it in the lead in Wikipedia voice--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

huh? originally the lead stated, "scholars of the social sciences frequently consider it a form of racism". now how did you manage to reduce this to "wikipedia voice"? could you please explain your observation in sensible terms?-- altetendekrabbe  11:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the edit of 09:50, 26 August 2012‎ is the best summary of the only consensus we can reach given our current review of the literature. The lead must reflect the body of the article as per WP:LEAD. I still don't see racism as part of one of the universally accepted definitions. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the original lead did in fact reflect the body of the article. i suggest someone reverts before i take this matter to an administrative venue.-- altetendekrabbe  11:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that sharing that Islamophobia can have racial connotations is a pretty fair comprimise. I mean the only reason people really want Islamophobia to have racism in the lead is because of the negative connotation. Heck even the Antisemitism article dosn't have the word racism in it and that is closer to the actual definition of racism because at least that is an ethnic group. I mean think about it would really consider anti-Mormonism or Anti-Wicca to be racism? Otherwise you would have to tell me why they are different?-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the original lead perfectly summarized the content of the main article. the current version violates wp:nor. besides, this is not a wp:forum. what matters on wikipedia is what reliable secondary sources state. it's clear that "scholars of the social sciences frequently consider it a form of racism", you cannot deny that. again, self-revert. otherwise, i have no choice but to take this to dispute resolution.-- altetendekrabbe  13:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rainbowofpeace has made a good faith edits towards seeking a consensus. To reduce this to "edit-warring, pure and simple" is unjustified. I'd welcome a wider participation in this discussion. I don't believe the previous version reflects that balance of the article. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you are telling me that if I can clearly find a source that says that "cats are racist" from a scholar who was sent to insane asylum I could put that on the cats article. Thats rediculous. I think you are missing the point. I think that the point is that we must remember what Islam is. There are still scholars who consider Pluto a planet. Heck there are scholars that argue that HIV dosn't lead to AIDS.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 13:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ok, take the sources to rs/n if you dare. in the meanwhile, consider to self-revert-- altetendekrabbe  13:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took it to the reliable source/noticeboard and will not revert until it is cleared up.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you forgot to list all of them. you're missing 3-4 sources.-- altetendekrabbe  13:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could I get some help I have no idea what I'm doing and I'm sure I did it wrong. Someone help me. And I'm only getting the lede for right now. I'm pretty sure if they take off one source for the reason I think it should be taken off then they will have to remove all the others that say so only to source a statement like that on principle.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The lead shouldn't quote people who say a phobia of Islam is equivalent to racism. It may be that a person is racist against black or middle eastern people, and that changes their attitude about Islam, but the same behavior can be seen in almost any person with regard to associations. These behaviors may be occuring in tandem, but first and foremost, a religion is not a race, and racism, by definition, is about race, not religion. Any educated person would be able to make the distinction. This seems pretty much an open and shut kind of thing. -- Avanu (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

any educated person? really? "race" is primarily a social construct, not biological. anyway, it's becoming quite clear that the matter has to be sorted out at a higher level.-- altetendekrabbe  13:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Altetendekrabbe - you are raising a straw man: Avenu did not suggest race was either a social construct or a biological matter. Alfietucker (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are so sure altetendekrabbe why don't you go to another religious discrimination article and post that is a form of racism. I guarantee someone will shoot it down. Almost every religion INCLUDING Islam has clear ethnic ties, Isalm to Arabs, Hinduism to Indians, Wicca to the Celts, Catholicism has ties to Irish, Philipino and Hispanic culture and Judaism obviously has ties to the Jewish people but that dosn't make discrimination against these religions racism. It means they can have racial connotations. It is only racism when that person has been targeted specifically because of their race, ethnicity or nationality.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

again, give me a reliable secondary source and i'll do just that.-- altetendekrabbe  14:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

christ! read our rs-guidelines, please.-- altetendekrabbe  14:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I linked to a hate site. I have removed the link and wish to apologize. I'm sorry I was misinformed.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no prob, bob. just fix your souce-list on the rs/n. i just noticed that you're new here, so you're probably not aware of all wiki-policies. the rs/n might be learning experience though :D -- altetendekrabbe  14:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So is a religion a race? I mean if it is just a social construct, then next time the census form comes, should I tell people to mark 'Catholic' or 'Buddhist' as their race? altetendekrabbe, I'll buy an argument that language is fluid and words can mean whatever we like, but this particular word "Islam" o "phobia", pretty much sounds like it means a phobia of Islam. From what you are telling me, I should ignore what it looks like and add additional explicit meanings to it. I think these things are clearly linked in people's minds, and maybe we are creating artificial distinctions, but that's pretty much what words do. If your mother would always get up on Saturday morning and bake, maybe Saturdays make you think of motherhood or family. Or maybe baked goods remind you of home. We build connections all the time between things. The US media trains people to despise Muslims because they always portray them as caricatures of themselves. But then you hear about some terrible story about a woman getting killed by her family because she was raped, or a nation being oppressed by its own religion and it reinforces those stereotypes. Yet, is this because of Islam, or because of tribal attitudes? And how do people reliably separate the two? It can be done, but it requires people who think. These scholars who paint Islamophobia itself as a form of racism are not using their brain as much as those who simply say that the two things are co-incident with one another in many cases. Is it racism if a white person adopts the religion of Mohammad and that person's friends despise him? I get that some scholars probably conflate these two, but they aren't really being legit about this. By the way, common sense is my secondary source here. -- Avanu (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok lets just say for a second that Islamophobia is a form of racism. Lets just say we can prove it one hundred percent. Technically then it would be a form of prejudice and discrimination. Since it is clearly debated and one of the sources in the article even says it isn't a form of racism why don't we just call it by the broader term or at least say there is debate as to whether or not it is racism.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no argument on what the sources say. There is, however, an argument on whether the majority or a significant minority of the scholarly review articles on the topic Islamophobia portray it as (partly) racism. If you have something to contribute to that discussion, please look into this section. If not, this is getting very, very old. Editors' opinions don't carry any weight. WP:RS, WP:DUE do. Now please cite 60-70 scholarly analyses or 10 reviews (a rough estimate of what would be needed to establish an overwhelming majority) that specifically say that Islamophobia is not racism, or cool down. The sources provided above are currently in no way supporting the view that racism should not be mentioned in the lead, and the sources used to keep it there do not say anything about concomitance, but rather of equivalence. At this point I'm willing to discuss the word "frequently". Otherwise, I suggest people either bring this to DR/N, request expert attention or start listing sources in the section mentioned that provide the picture the "anti-racists" (pun intended :-) assert. Best regards, benjamil ^talk/_edits 15:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me defer to WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Islamophobia_as_racism for a moment. The conclusion was "We ought to follow the preponderance of scholarly opinion as scholarship provide both weight and verifiability." Towards that goal let me suggest we consider Chris Allen's review [11]. Chris Allen is widely respected among the editors here. He is an expert in the subject. This review discusses the term and its use. He considers many possibilities. At no time does he consider Islamophobia to be defined as racism. Often he refers to Xenophobia, racism, and Islamophobia. Clearly he sees these as distinct concepts. Thus, while there are a minority of scholars who define Islamohobia as a type of racism, the "preponderance of scholarly opinion" as shown in a review of scholarly opinion by a leading scholar omits "Islamophobia is racism" from the realm of possibilities. This should settle it. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, we're not going to let a single review of your choice settle the matter. :-) Sorry, but that would not conform to WP:BALANCE. benjamil ^talk/_edits 15:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From one of the sources present now:

In 2005, a Council of Europe publication Islamophobia and its consequences on Young People referred to Islamophobia as "the fear of or prejudiced viewpoint towards Islam, Muslims and matters pertaining to them. Whether it takes the shape of daily forms of racism and discrimination or more violent forms, Islamophobia is a violation of human rights and a threat to social cohesion."

The author then uses a paraphrase to conflate the terms:

In this regard, paraphrasing Edward Said, Semati also eloquently defines what Islamophobia refers to: "Islamophobia is a cultural-ideological outlook that seeks to explain ills of the (global) social order by attributing them to Islam. It is a way of thinking that conflates histories, politics, societies and cultures of the Middle East into a single unified and negative conception of Islam. It is an ideology in which the 'backwardness' of the other is established through an essentialized Islam. It is, as a form of racism, an essentialist view of peoples whose culture it deems 'different' in an eternal, fixed, and immutable fashion...."

It is clear that the authors know the difference between racism and religious discrimination, and while they are right to see them as occuring together, they still know there is a difference. -- Avanu (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably well aware that this is WP:OR. Not surprisingly, I disagree with your interpretation. The "conflation", as it appears to me, is a conclusion: It argues that a unified, negative conception of Islam is used to essentialise Muslims, therefore it is a form of racism, as the peoples have a culture which is "different" etc. Actually, I don't see the paraphrase at all.

This being said, pointing out faults in peer-reviewed paper doesn't take away their status as such. If you can't find anyone else making your points in publications of equal stature (which, based on the above reasoning I doubt you will), putting your points into a paper and getting it published in a peer-reviewed journal is probably more fruitful than a continuation of this discussion.

Best regards, benjamil ^talk/_edits 20:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The term "conflate" is not one I conjured out of thin air. It is in the source. You can also find the same information in the other source in the article as well. This is not original research when the sources themselves make a clear reference to what racism is and then paraphrase or rephrase it to make it fit within Islamophobia. -- Avanu (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"racism, by definition, is about race, not religion" (Avanu) It depend of which definition is used. By example: above, Rainbowofpeace use a definition in which "Racism is limited to discrimination based on race and usually ethnicity and sometimes nationality", so covert not race only. An other example: the French law forbidding incitement to racial hatred covert attack against people from some race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender or sexual affinity ("à raison de leur origine ou de leur appartenance ou de leur non-appartenance à une ethnie, une nation, une race ou une religion [...] de leur sexe, de leur orientation ou identité sexuelle ou de leur handicap"). Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You misinterpret what I said. Racism has included nationality and ethnicity becuase they have at one time or another been used synoymously with the actual definition of race. A history of racism in the United States would be a history of Irish people, Germans, ethnic Jews (people who were part of the Jewish ethnicity including atheists which most Jews in the United States don't even practice Judaism the Muslim equivilent would be arabs which is why anti-arabism and Islamophobia are related. When we speak of racial antisemitism we mean discrimination against ashkenazim, sephardim, mizrahim etc. Even the religion admits that a heritage is passed down although one can only practice the faith if it is through the mother), and of course hispanics which are considered to be white in almost every country except for the United States and Canada as well as people of color. The reason why these are included is because at one time they were thought to fit the defintion of having different genetics which every race, ethnicity and nationality have to an extent. The reason why we know that these three concepts are all social constructs is simple because although almost all members of one of these groups have definite genetic similarities especially in the likeliness for certain genetic diseases. For example see the Blood Type article and click on the race and ethnicity chart. However aside from a small amount of genetic similarities found in almost all of a racial, ethnic or national group it is still based on artificial concepts that are not natural. Compare that to say anti-Mormonism or anti-Atheism. What genes do almost every person of these religious groups have that arn't present exclusively in that religion?-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Visite-fortuitement-prolongée: Considering that "race" is an immutable trait (despite being a social construct), and religion is a matter of personal faith or choice, these two terms do not seem to be equivalent in the term "race-ism". -- Avanu (talk) 08:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Word change meaning over time. A dictionary online (thefreedictionary) claimed that rac-ism is hate against race, but rac-ist is hate against race *and* religion. Ox-ford do not acknowledge ethnic groups, only race as defined by skin color. Looking at a third, one is likely to get a third definition.

verifiable is one reason why we should not interpret, but rather use the wording the sources do. If a consensus of sources call it one thing, we should follow that until the consensus changes. Belorn (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly why I chose the word "concomitant" (diff) rather than making the equivalency. It is more neutral in tone. It is more in line with the preponderance of sources, and it is in line with the sources referenced by the sentence in the article. -- Avanu (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that it is not what the sources say. Schiffer's abstract reads: "The authors argue that to compare Islamophobia with anti-Semitism is not to equate them. But finding some parallels might help German society to combat a growing and dangerous anti-Muslim racism." There are quotes in reference 5 that also make this very clear. I would also like to point out that the current wording does not imply that all scholars always equate it with racism. It is not part of the core definition, but the current text acknowledges it as at least a significant minority. Your suggested wording would be a serious misrepresentation of these sources. benjamil ^talk/_edits 22:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the sentence that says that some scholars call it racism could say that this is controversial or that many scholars disagree then I think we could reach a comprimise. Certainly the fact of the matter is that some scholars do call it racism and have reasons behind it but we must acknowledge that this is a heavily debated statement.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have sources supporting that? First you would have to find a source that it is just "some" and then you would have to find a source saying it is controversial. // Liftarn (talk)

You know what I'm droping out of this battle. I'm not going to sit and listen anymore to some people who have not taken a single sociology class advancing their political agenda. As a person of color and a Jew I understand very clearly the difference between religious and racial prejudice. Obviously most of the people on here havn't got enough maturity to be able to understand that. By the way your sources DO NOT say that every or even most scholars consider Islamophobia a form of racism so we can only say some unless you have a source that shows most or all do. And the fact that there is a source later on the page that says very clearly that Islamophobia IS NOT a form of racism proves that not all do. It also proves that their is controversy over it because that it was controversy means. So I won't list any names so I don't break any rules but I hope alot of you editors will grow up and actually read a book.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 10:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While Rainbowofpeace's comments are clearly accusative and emotionally charged and clearly not assuming good faith they do seem to know what they are talking about. The lede sentence could easily imply that all scholars see it as a form of racism which is clearly not true by the source later in the article that says that it isn't racism but similar. Adding at least the word "some" could make the statement for neutral and less implying of the opinion of all social scholars.-24.17.117.112 (talk) 05:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Johnson's opinion does clearly not have anything to do with defining the concept of Islamophobia. It does not fill the formal requirements for being a definition, by attempting to [the necessary and sufficient conditions] for behaviour being islamophobic. On the other hand, it is a criticism of a specific group of islamophobes (namely outright racists) from a specific point of view. benjamil ^talk/_edits 21:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be saying that what is called Islamophobia may actually be racism (or xenophobia) disguised as religious criticism. This follows (or should follow) Diane Frost's comment on the relation of Islamophobia and racism. It seems to clarify the connection. I'd think you'd welcome Johnson's view of Islamophobia as a type of racism instead of genuine religious criticism. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any vested interest in getting Islamophobia protrayed as racism beyond the extent to which the scholarly community does so. As a source for the definition section, his comment (that is what it is, it has definitely not been peer-reviewed), is quite sub-optimal. If he's written a paper in a peer-reviewed journal, his (possible) scholarly achievements in the field could be included in the first part of the section. His political corollary has nothing to do with the definition, and I'm really at a loss as to how that could be justified. It is a plainly political statement.benjamil ^talk/_edits 12:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that racists will usually adopt any form of prejudice which allows them to vent their emotions. Although there is much more behind Islamophobia (many non-racists are Islamophobic because they feel threatened by an indomitably different ways of life), Islamophobia is certainly one of the vehicles used by racists to vent their hatred. Perhaps there should be a section discussing this? It seems from this talk page that there is much that can be said on the issue if I am not mistaken. Kaz 17:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

agree. note that there is already a section discussing this issue. there is a huge amount of academic sources that analyze the "racial" content of the islamophobia phenomena. i'll expand the section when i'm less pressed for time. you could also make an effort as there are a lot of sources. if you have time, read e.g. meer, n. and modood, t. (2009): "the multicultural state we’re in: muslims, ‘multiculture’ and the ‘civic re-balancing’ of british multiculturalism"

however, the discussions here have revolved around the lead: should islamophobia be defined as racism there, yes or no.-- altetendekrabbe  18:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you begin to feel threatened from "different ways of life (i.e. cultures)" you have already passed the border towards racism, IMO of course... --E4024 (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

agree on that.-- altetendekrabbe  18:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]