Talk:Islamophobia/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Misuse of the term & conflicting definitions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Islamophobia = racism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please note that what we say is that islamophobia is

• prejudice against

or

• hatred towards

or

• irrational fear of

or

• racism towards

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

Australia

I found this sentence in the lede:

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

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

References

Since we have a globalize template at the top it might not be a good idea to narrow the geographical scope of the article. // Liftarn (talk)

Not racism

Per WP:NOTAFORUM, this discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If criticising the central tenets of a religion is racism, then British TV is racist every night, Ricky Gervais is a popular racist etc. Mehdi Hasan insulted my religion, atheism. Care to put racist in the first sentence of his article? Even Bin Laden isn't called racist on this website for killing people because of their religion. Indiasummer95 (talk) 11:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC) First, Islamaphobia isn't simply criticizing the central tenets of a religion, anymore than anti-semitism can be defined as criticizing the central tenets of Judaism. Apples and granite. Secondly, Islamaphobia isn't a person, your other examples are. And finally, whatever your opinion is, you know by know how we work and that we rely on sources. Dougweller (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC) So is the concept of Islamism or a Global caliphate racist then? Indiasummer95 (talk) 11:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC) This is not a forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC) I'm tired of this comparison with anti-Semitism. Antisemitism is a form of racism because Jews are not only a religious group but an ethnic group there are atheist, Christian and yes Muslim Jews. I would love to meet a Muslim Christian or Muslim Hindu. 1 in 37 Jews is a convert the majority of the rest are Jews by blood. There is evidence that in the United States and Israel most Jews don't even practice Judaism. Now is Islamophobia bad. Absolutely as a matter a fact it kills people. Its a horrible social disease. But it is against a religion. Like an attack on Hinudism, Shinto, Wicca or Christianity. What if we called attacks on Scientology racism. Now if we are going to call it racism fine but you better be willing to put it on every other anti-religion article. The point of the matter is that whether we are talking about racism, sexism, homophobia or religious intolerance all kill people and all are forms of prejudice, discrimination and bigotry. That should be enough.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC) The article is based on published reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Yes you are correct certain sources say one thing. At least one source in the article says something else. That's why I've suggested before adding the word controversially to show there is disagreement. Not to completely eliminate the fact that some people see it one way and btw you did not address a single part of my argument.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC) I didn't address your argument because it is yours. We base articles on published reliable sources, not on the opinions of contributors. AS for your suggestion that we add the word 'controversially', can you cite a source that states that it is controversial? There are clearly differing definitions of the term Islamophobia, but that in of itself doesn't amount to a 'controversy'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC) The idea that Islamophobes don't target people by ethnic group seems dubious, and in any case racism is often seen as targeted at cultural, caste or religious groups - and by and large Muslims form a cultural group. And to a large extent skin color factors in here also. Dougweller (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC) This is a myth, that people target islamic or muslim population by race, they actually target them by the events that they have heard of. Capitals00 (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC) This is not a forum for discussing whether or not islamophobia is racism. The purpose of the talk page is to discuss improvements to the article. TFD (talk) 02:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Islamophobia is not racism...

This article is based on published reliable sources. We do not ignore such sources because a contributor thinks they are 'wrong'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Islam is a religion not a race therefore why is "racism" included in the header or indeed the article at all? CrossHouses (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Have you actually read the article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC) I am in the process of reading, however this is irrelevant. I do not understand why racism is included in the header. Islam is a religion not a race... CrossHouses (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC) The article is based on published reliable sources, some of which equate Islamophobia with racism. Wikipedia articles are based on sources, not on contributors opinions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)I hate to make this comparison, but neo-Nazis say the same thing about antisemitism and Jewish people. Plus, sources are used properly in this article. Dave Dial (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Therefore the header should say "sometimes incorrectly referred to as racism". Also Jews are most definitely a race however Muslims are more along the lines of the Mongol Hordes who just assimilate anyone who is of mind to join them... CrossHouses (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Please note that Wikipedia is not a platform for bigotry, regardless of how it is described. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC) I see no bigotry here Andrew :) All I'm saying is Islam is not a race it is a religion... CrossHouses (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC) The article is based on what reliable sources say. That is Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC) How reliable are these sources if they're wrong? CrossHouses (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC) This was brought up at commons. Dictionary#Prescriptive_vs._descriptive states: "In the long run, however, the meanings of words in English are primarily determined by usage, and the language is being changed and created every day." (Ned Halley, The Wordsworth Dictionary of Modern English Grammar (2005) p. 84) If the sources change the word then we reflect that.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Try again...

Just because the self-confessed grump doesn't like the topic, I am still asking a valid question about whether there is any way to slightly reword it without being accused of being a "bigot"... CrossHouses (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

If you are going to make a specific proposal, based on published reliable sources, do so - but please don't waste our time with further arguments based on your own opinions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Any re-wording must be based on reliable sources. Remember though that there is a difference between what a term means and whether you believe it is a valid concept. TFD (talk) 05:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• I don't have much patience for this blather, but after encountering some absurd categorization being enforced and protected on Commons -- automatically placing the figure of the guy with the sign with the pig on it under "Racism", which is hardly in line with BLP! -- I did a search and found [4], which says "Thus, while Islamophobia or any anti-Muslim discrimination is not necessarily racist, in many contexts it can take a racist form as it appeared to do in the case of Kilroy Silk." There must be more - this whole notion that Islam is a "race" makes me wonder what religions are racist to protest against and which aren't. (Christianity? Scientology? David Koresh?) Wnt (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

We cite sources that describe (some aspects of) Islamophobia as racism. Read them. This is not a forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

No source can fully confirm it as racism

The lead says that this is the most controversial point. So how can some sources confirm it as racism and not others. Tariq Modood is not a reliable source, as his work reflects his personal opinion, like a blog or the work of David Duke - as a PhD can Duke's work confirm Zionism as racism? Indiasummer95 (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you seriously comparing several peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals with a blog? // Liftarn (talk)

Modood reflects his own opinions in his work. No journal can be a single 'right answer' if others say differently. Indiasummer95 (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Which source are you citing for an assertion that Islamophobia doesn't contain elements of racism? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

We need to remove all the statements in this article claiming Islamophobia is racism. I fully agree that Islamophobia cannot be racism because - as mentioned before - Islam is a religion, in the end a choice of belief/religion/philosophy (for lack a single exact term I used three), while race - if one believes in it (despite the fact that it is more as a social construction than rigorous biology) - does not apply: A blonde-haired, blue-eyed Swede can be a Muslim just as much as a wavy haired, dark-skinned New Guinean. Unless we here at Wikipedia wish to change our acception of the definition of racism and race, we need to remove this article's inappropriate and innaccurate references to Muslims as a race.

自教育 (talk) 04:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Your opinions regarding this matter are of no relevance whatsoever. We base article content on what reliable sources say, and not on the opinions of contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I think this issue has been discussed more than enough to warrant a moderator to come into it. I also think that if the people want to call Islamophobia racism they can at least explain how it is racism and that might help those of us who don't understand (me included) not need to keep bringing it up. When a child first steals a cookie you tell them why stealing is bad so they don't do it again. So explain how Islamophobia is racism and maybe people will stop flooding these chats. I do however think we still need a moderator to look it over.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The article does not say islamophobia is racism, it says that racism is part of the definition usually presented. TFD (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me for my ignorance but are you telling Islamophobia is not a form of racism? My main question is asking if people do think Islamophobia is a form of racism what their definition of racism is because mine must be out of date. I may very well be wrong (I have been many times before) and I just think that if people do think it is they should tell me (or preferably find a source) explaining how it is and what else that expands the definition to include. It could also be that the article is talking about racism towards groups because they are assumed to be Muslim therefore being based on race. I could agree with that if we could make that very clear in the article.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Read the sources cited in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The sources say it is racism they do not explain how it is racism. That is what I'm asking.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Have you read them? The sources say Islamophobia is cultural racism because of general xenophobia—fear of the outsider, especially in Europe with fear of the Muslim immigrant. See racism expert Liz Fekete's A suitable enemy: racism, migration and Islamophobia in Europe, ISBN 9780745327921. Also see sociologist Malcolm Brown's "Conceptualising Racism and Islamophobia" in J. ter Wal and M. Verkuyten (eds), Comparative Perspectives on Racism, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2000 (pp.73–90). Brown joined with sociologist Robert Miles to update their book Racism (ISBN 9780415296779) to include Islamophobia, "a phenomenon which interacts significantly with racism." Political scientist Raymond Taras writes in Xenophobia and Islamophobia in Europe, page 14, that "racism is a multidimensional concept," meaning it is about more than race. He says in the 20th century it was largely about anti-Negro and anti-Jew ideologies, but in the 21st century anti-Arabism/anti-Islamism racism came to the fore as Islamophobia. He cites Pierre-André Taguieff to say that the ideology of Islamophobia is racist because it reduces an individual or group to their community of origin, that it stigmatizes and excludes a group, and that it characterizes the group as inferior, thus being incapable of civilization and assimilation. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I have attempted to clarify that in the article. If someone could please help me move the sources. That would be great. Thanks.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted your change. As has been pointed out multiple times, we go by what the sources say, not by our own opinions. Your change wasn't even grammatical. I suggest that rather than editing the article you propose changes here, and let others comment first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, well at first my illiterate mind couldn't even wrap my head around the Islamophobia=racism concept. The obvious reason being Islam isn't a race and we don't call Anti-Catholicism or Anti-Mormonism etc. racism. Then I read some of the sources and listened to what Binksternet had to say. It seemed clear they were explaining it as cultural racism meaning that for example Arabs and South-Asians and other Middle Eastern appearing immigrants are being stereotyped as being Muslim and therefore it is definitely racism because that definitely has to do with race. I also think this clarification would make it clear exactly is meant by the statement Islamophobia is racism so that we could end the constant debate that is in these talk pages.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 20:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

'Immigrants' is hardly the appropriate word in situations like the UK, where a significant proportion of the Muslim population may have second-or-third generation ancestry here. As for whether we need to clarify what our sources mean when they link Islamophobia with racism, you may be right that it needs doing - but we have to do it based on what the sources say. I don't think your suggestion of the wording "racism against ethnic groups perceived to be Muslim" is really doing that. The point is (engaging in WP:OR here) that anti-Muslim prejudice (in the UK certainly) is multi-faceted, and has to be seen in the broader context of both prejudice against 'non-white' minorities in general, and against minority belief systems in general. Add that to the perceived threat of 'militant Islamic fundamentalism' (based to a limited extent on a reality - but grossly exaggerated in terms of any real influence amongst the UK Muslim population), and you have a series of intersecting factors leading to prejudice - which tend to 'multiply' the effects, rather than merely 'adding' them. You can't really separate out the 'racist' aspects of Islamophobia in a context like this - and you can't 'explain' it in terms of how this or that ethnicity is perceived to 'be Muslim', if for no other reason than the simple fact that a significant proportion of UK Islamophobes seem to know f***-all about Islam, and frequently seem to pick on the 'wrong ethnicity' when venting their Islamophobia. Prejudice is rarely rationally thought out, and it is a mistake to try to explain it in terms that imply rationality. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that for the most part we agree. My reasoning for the edit was mostly because that I don't think the context is quite getting through to people. There is a reason why people keep arguing on this talk page and that's because they see point a (Islamophobia) and point d (racism) without seeing the point b and c that connects it. Technically they are partially right Islamophobia would not be racism if it wasn't for the fact that most prejudice against them is based on Anti-Arabism and other anti-ethnic discrimination. I'm saying we need to clarify when and why it is racism so that a) readers understand it and b) to end the constant flooding of discussion of the topic on the talk page.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I have waited for two days if you think you can improve go on ahead and right something more reasonable. In the mean time I'm changing it back.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 02:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Rainbowofpeace has reinstated his version of the lead.[5] As has been explained to him, his version is unsupported by sources. TFD (talk) 03:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

First off please use respectful or no pronouns. Secondly my reasons were posted very clearly in the talk page.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 03:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The sources do not say Islamophobia can be "racism against ethnic groups perceived to be Muslim." Instead it is racism against Muslims. If you want to expand on why it is considered racism, then you need to find sources. TFD (talk) 15:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, please drop the "Islam is not a race". It's just as annoying and irrelevant as the people who keep repeating "Arabs are also semites" over at the antisemitism article. Racism is about discrimination and hate against an identifiable group. Often it is against a minority or disadvantaged group (even if reverse racism also exists). As the article says it is directed at "the other". Religion is not really relevant, but the anti-Musim racism is directed at people belonging to the Muslim cultural group. You can be a cultural Muslim without being a religious Muslim. For instance I have a acquaintance who is a Muslim atheist. He is an atheist by choice, but he a Muslim by heritage. He can be identified as a Muslim by for instance his name, beard, diet and he says things like Insha'Allah. // Liftarn (talk)

If you say that hating a culture is racist, then does that mean that hating, saying, cultures that encourage and practise FGM is racist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.76.131 (talk) 10:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

This is beside the point. We're not debating if Islamophobia is racist, we're simply saying what the sources say. — Richard BB 10:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course your atheistic Muslim friends (like mine) experience the same hatred that Arab Christians face. They also find they are called "terrorist" and other hateful things because they are foreign or from the Middle East or darker or some other marker that makes them the "other." But that just means that some Islamophobes are also racists and exhibit xenophobia. It doesn't mean that Islamophobia is racism or xenophobia. One can be all three. Now the sources, as we saw last year, are mixed. It has never been shown that "racism" is part of the mainstream definition of Islamophobia. We shouldn't have it in the lead sentence. It should be mentioned in a subsequent sentence as a minority view. Jason from nyc (talk)

On the contrary, I pointed out above that Liz Fekete, Malcolm Brown, Robert Miles and Pierre-André Taguieff use an expansive definition of Islamophobia which includes racism as one of the foundational elements. I thought this discussion had settled the matter, that is, until some scholar is found saying that Islamophobia is not racism. Binksternet (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Chris Allen, who wrote the book on Islamophobia, reviews the literature here [6]. He always speaks of Islamophobia, racism, and xenophobia as three distinct concepts. Most discussions of Islamophobia leave out racism or contrast it with racism. Thus, Islamophobia is not racism. Jason from nyc (talk)

Allen is not the only scholar who has written on the topic. Nonetheless, let us look at what he says. He cites Martin Barker who says that a "new racism" emerged in the 1970s, one that separated from traditional racism based primarily on race. The new racism used weaselly redefinitions to arrive at the same old racist results, but not explicitly. Allen says that Islamophobia has some overlap with traditional racism but it is right in line with the new racism. Allen reports that the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia "was integral in the shaping of the definition and conceptualisation of Islamophobia in the public space." He says that the Commission's report acknowledged Islamophobia as a form of racism (page 14, Islamophobia.) He says the Parekh Report from the Runnymede Trust shied away from the use of the term 'Islamophobia' and instead substituted the term "anti-Muslim racism". Allen says that skin colour is a key element of UK racism whereas the definition of racism in the rest of Europe is much broader; so broad that Islamophobia is included. Binksternet (talk) 02:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Allen explores all the theories and possibilities. At the end (see the Conclusion chapter, p194) he says it is "similar in theory function and purpose to racism." Thus it is not racism. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I think at least part of the question here is the definition of "racism," specifically, whether negative opinions regarding what many might consider to be cultural attributes of a given group, rather than necessarily genetic attributes, would be considered "racial" opinions or something of the sort. I am myself far from certain that the term "racism" has a clear, universally agreed upon definition, and, if that is the case, then it would be difficult for any one to determine whether it necessarily meets all the definitions in use. Having said that, I think that the content would be clearer if, like I say above, it would maybe indicate why there seems to be disagreement on this topic, and that might, possibly, include something regarding the lack of any universally agreed upon definition of racism. John Carter (talk)

The article does not say that Islamophobia is racism, but that it may be racism. Hence no change is required. John Carter, we are not here to define racism and determine whether Islamophobia is one of its forms, that would be original research. We merely report what sources say about Islamophobia. BTW, since racism long pre-dates the discovery of the gene, the idea that discrimination is based on "genetic attributes" is questionable. I wonder if you could tell me which specific genes determine a person's race. TFD (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

page is a troll magnet by design

Per WP:NOTAFORUM, this discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Islamophobia" is, for better or worse, a propaganda term no better or no worse than "war on terror" or "Eurabia". Of course there should be an article about it, but it will always be a troll magnet. It should be obvious to anyone editing Wikipedia in good faith that we cannot present a propaganda term like that as if it had some kind of objective content. Of course "Islamophobia" is used in connection with "racism", duh, it's used by angry people to denounce opinions they do not like, so obviously they will pile up the vebal injury as best they know. That's just human, the point is that Wikipedia cannot do this in its own voice. For the purposes of Wikipedia, "Islamophobia" is just a propaganda term thrown around by one side of a political dispute, just like "Eurabia" may be thrown around by the other. We can have an "Islamophobia" template the day we have an "Eurabia", or a "Verjudung" template, i.e. the day we give up Wikipedia core policy and let the trolls do whatever they like. The day we describe atheism as "Christophobia" or "Religiophobia" we can describe misgivings vs. the more threatening aspects of Islam as "Islamophobia". Until that day, I will keep adding "disputed" tags to revisions that depict "Islamophobia" as if it had any objective meaning. If you think that makes me an "Islamophobic" (because you assume anyone must be in either one of two camps that exist in your mind?), you may look at the history of the Eurabia page and you will find that I took exactly the same position towards the opposite side of this. My interest is in keeping Wikipedia clean, it is not in pushing one ideology over another. If a nutter commits a hate crime against Muslims, describe that as a hate crime against Muslims, if appropriate call it "Christian terrorism" or the like, just as you would describe a Muslim commiting hate crimes against Westerners. But Muslim extremists blowing up subway trains or killing people in malls aren't "Christophobes" or "Occidentophobes", people who butcher Muslims aren't "Islamophobes", they are just extremist nutters. If Muslims blowing up non-Muslims aren't suffering from a "phobia", I fail to see how people who feel uneasy about such acts should be seen as suffering from a "phobia". Using "phobia" in this way is just cheap rhetorics, you depict opinions you do not like in pathological terminology, thus suggesting that your opponents need medical attention and you cannot be expected to take them seriously. The problem is not that people do this (it's normal), the problem seems to be that Wikipedia is unable to keep this stuff out of its article prose. --dab (𒁳) 10:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC) Please don't soapbox on wikipedia. Sepsis II (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC) Dbachmann, your rant against the word is against the guideline at WP:NOTAFORUM. Furthermore, you have chosen to ignore the scholarship which has been and is still being carried out on this topic. Quite a few sociologists have published on the topic. This article will continue to tell the reader a summary of what the literature says about Islamophobia, despite your feelings. Binksternet (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC) Agree with the above two responses. Can we hide this distraction and move on? Jason from nyc (talk)

Sources disagree: only some see cultural racism

I did a brief check of the books on Islamophobia on amazon sorted by “New and Popular” as a quick check to see what has changed since we discussed this issue last year. Here is what I found.

(1) Akhtar, the first on the list, is a work of fiction--we’ll ignore it. (2) Esposito’s “What Everyone Needs to Know ...” uses “Islamophobia” ten times and concludes at one point that it is “cultural racism” on page 273. The previous edition of the book makes no mention of either. Thus, Esposito is starting to use it in this and other senses. (3) McCloud’s authors say Islamophobia p5 is as essentializing p161 means “literally fear” p300 sees religion intrinsically flawed, monolithic, etc. The dozen or so authors do not define it as “racism”. When it is finally defined on p287 it is defined as “fear (or hatred) of Islam.” (4) We’ll omit Shoebat’s self-published book.

(5) Kumar is an extreme proponent of the racism definition. You’ll find Islamophobia is [p3] “anti-Muslim racism” and “cultural racism” She says p6 “liberal Islamophobia” (re: Obama) acknowledges [p195] “good Muslims” who “cooperate with the goals of empire” [p133] and these liberals are still “racist and imperialist.” [p6] In conclusion “Islamophobia is about politics rather than religion per se.” (6) I didn’t look close at Rabbi Scheier’s book as it is tangential to the discussion but he doesn’t seem to use “cultural racism.”

(7) Lean talk of “cultural racism” as a “new racism” is talked about above and we included a quote in the article. (8) Jocelyn Cesari’s book on p84 says Islamophobia is “usually defined as anti Islamic speech or acts of discrimination or abuse against Muslims.” She then typifies this speech as “essentializing” Islam “as a unified ideology ... a radical ideology.” No talk of “cultural racism” here. (9) I can’t find Patel’s definition but he seems to use the phrase anti-Muslim more than Islamophobia and here he stresses viewing all Muslims as the same.

(10) Hammer’s authors mostly have no def but some tie it to racism p 75 p148 yet none define it as a type of racism. (11) Taras uses the trilogy (racism, xenophobia, and Islamophobia) but also “cultural racism.” (12) Tibi sees the word Islamophobia as an term to suppress debate. He does take to task those who don’t differentiate between Islam and Islamism.

Thus, since last year the idea that Islamophobia is a type of racism is still only articulated by a few authors. It is proper to qualify the lead with “some” and “new racism” Jason from nyc (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

You have spent a lot of time expressing your personal opinions. You think Islamophobia is not racism but you also think there is no such thing as Islamophobia. You have no sources to support your views, only disingenuous arguements. The irony is that even if you persuade me to believe what you do, it would still be in violation of the policy of neutrality to support those views in this article.

Incidentally, what is your view of Muslims? Do you think that the Muslim ideology is a threat to world peace?

Your "some" is disingenuous too. Facts only require one source. The onus is on those who oppose those facts to supply other sources. So if we have two sources that say Lake Michigan is a lake, we do not say "some sources claim Lake Michigan is a lake."

TFD (talk) 06:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I've just reviewed the views of 11 authors. Last year I participated in a review of the literature for several months (see Talk:Islamophobia/Archive_13#Racism.3F. To say that I'm expressing personal opinions is outrageous. (2) Now you're telling us that when the sources disagree, you're going with the sources you like and ignoring those sources that hold the opposite viewpoint. I got it. You're going to cherry pick the sources that come to your conclusion. There are other people that will cherry pick the sources you don't like. If you look at the literature both views are represented by reliable sources and we have to tell that to the readers. "I like it" isn't a good reason to establish either that racism is part of the definition or not. Some say it is and some say it isn't. We can't use our POV to cherry pick sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 10:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Sources say that the Runnymede Trust definition is broadly accepted. It does not matter whether you or I think it is racism. What btw is the relevance of your postings in the archives? Sources on islamophobia say that it may be a form of racism, then you find a definition of racism which says it may include religious discrimination, conclude that is what the Trust definition means, then decide not to include it. That is synthesis. Why are you so riled whether Islamophobia is based on irrational hatred of a a religion or racism. Do you think one form of irrational hatred is more respectable than another? TFD (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

You're giving me nothing but your point of view and end by asking me for mine. Neither is a basis for an edit. I'm restoring that which is based on sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

So in summary we have several reliable sources that says islamophobia is a form of racism and we have some sources who says nothing about the subject. What you need to find is sources saying islamophobia is not a form or racism. Also "some" is WP:WEASEL and "new racism" or WP:OR (or possibly WP:SYN. If it is not in the sources you may not put it in the article. // Liftarn (talk)

Not quite. If scholars define Islamophobia without using racism as a genus but nevertheless contrast it with racism, they clearly don't define it as a type of racism. They give their definition without specifying it as a type of racism. While I do not accept your criteria I can still satisfy it. Since a few outliers do define it as a type of racism it is not surprising that those reviewing the usage of the term might comment on it. I have supplied several comments from scholars that show there is no consensus of how to connect Islamophobia with racism. It is not racism, which most still mean "physical racism" and not the neologism "cultural racism." Jason from nyc (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

By the way, which "racism" do you mean in the first sentence? Jason from nyc (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, the paragraph that reviews the literature should be the leading paragraph in the racism section. The examples of individual who define Islamophobia as a type of racism should follow. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

If different scholars define Islamophobia in different ways then we need a source that says that. Sources say that the Runnymede Trust definition is generally accepted. I have not seen any other definition of Islamophobia in mainstream sources and you have not provided any. TFD (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I provided sources that say there is vast differences in terminology and definitions. And I'll provide more. Jason from nyc (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

So, have you managed to find any reliable sources supporting your view that islamophobia is not racism? Any at all? // Liftarn (talk)

Experts find the term problematic.

Last year when I last contributed to the article and debate, the article had a second sentence that said some view Islamophobia as racism. In the spring that sentence was gone. By June racism appeared in the first sentence without qualification. There seems to be a tug-of-war between the two sides that depends on who comes around and which sources they view as important. Let me say I believe the editors are acting in good faith. The problem isn’t editors; it’s the sources. The experts have different descriptions and narratives. Not only have many of us noticed this but so have the experts. We need to make it clear to the readers that the experts find that the term is used in many different ways and no clear consensus exists as to what is and is not included in the concept. I have (or will soon) inserted the experts' views in the second sentence. I’d like to hear everyone’s opinion. Jason from nyc (talk) 22:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be better to discuss them here first. TFD (talk) 23:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I admit it was a bold edit but actually all of these sources were discussed here and several are already in the article. Some of the books are on the Further Reading list. But I'm never adverse to re-examing sources and including others. I'm hoping this might help the reader to understand the challenges that experts face and we, of course, can't resolve. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

That's why the header lists three definitions with "or" between them. // Liftarn (talk)

Organisations section

Why is this section devoted almost entirely to Robert Spencer of the David Horowitz Freedom Center? Look at some sources

1. An article by Karen Armstrong who has no religious scholarly credentials, not even an expert in this field.
2. Censored 2004: The Top 25 Censored Stories Peter Phillips page 244 - bias source that's probably not even reliable, amazon.com self description says "since 1995 available through Seven Stories Press, is dedicated to the stories that ought to be top features on the nightly news, but that are missing because of media bias and self-censorship." so why aren't we just using the actual under-reported story?
3. "Chicago Library Group Panelists Withdraw Over Role of Islam-Basher Robert Spencer" this is a CAIR press release republished on an unreliable site so is very bias.

And some primary sources commenting on what they think of Rob Spencer and his group a minor incident around advertising. Rob Spencer and his groups may be worth mentioning, but the detail is unnecessary with sources provided. Not cutting it down myself as I know someone will just revert it anyway.--Loomspicker (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to find more sources and expand the section. // Liftarn (talk)

Reported by media or the victim?

"The media also has been criticized for under-reporting hate crimes against Muslims."Jenny Bourne (4 February 2010). "Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hate crime in London". Institute of Race Relations. Retrieved 2010-04-05."

Part I think this is referring to "occur on a regular basis; the majority of anti-Muslim hate crimes go unreported – are actually based."

Isn't this talking about the crime being reported by victims, not the media reporting it as it says in the wiki article?--Loomspicker (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree - it's referring to crimes not reported by the victim(s). Have removed the misleading sentence. Alfietucker (talk) 21:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Bias and misused sources

Islamophobia#Media

"In 2009 Mehdi Hasan in the New Statesman criticized Western media for over-reporting a few Islamist terrorist incidents but under-reporting the much larger number of non-Islamist terrorist attacks carried out by non-Muslim white extremists."

Why are we mentioning Mehdi Hasan? He has no academic record in the field, has crazy strange views, and is clearly bias in this subject.

This 'article' is talking about the British Media, then we have the following sentence: "A Europol report showed that, contrary to media representation, more than 99% of terrorist attacks in Europe from 2006 to 2009 were, in fact, carried out by non-Muslims."

The Europol reports say that the there are way more arrests & convictions in Britain for Islamists than other non-islamist attacks.

He is talking about British Media, then it is talking about Europe attacks as a whole is under reported??? For these reasons, both sentences and relevant sources should be removed.--Loomspicker (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Loomspicker, I'm not sure I share your bias against commentators in New Statesman who lack, or supposedly lack, academic qualifications (see also Ziauddin Sardar below). If they publish in a high profile journal then it is probably worth noting what they say, if only as a rough barometer as to what is being published in the media. What I will say is that the Islamophobia article is very poorly organized and in danger of looking like a laundry list. It could do with a thorough bit of copy-editing. Alfietucker (talk) 22:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Ziauddin Sardar, who?

Why are we quoting Ziauddin Sardar? He does not appear to have any academic background to comment on such social issues?--Loomspicker (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

You don't seem very fond of New Statesman articles. ;-) Alfietucker (talk) 22:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Page protected

The page is temporarily protected while discussion continues. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Grammar in first paragraph

I think the content is wrong, but to stick to my grammar point, "used generally to refer to prejudice against, hatred towards, irrational fear of Muslims" is not perfectly correct or understandable as I've been told. It could read "to refer to prejudice against and hatred towards irrational fear of Muslims" although I'm pretty sure it isn't meant to be understood that way. Does it mean "prejudice against, hatred towards, or irrational fear..." or should that be "and" or even "and/or"? The second paragraph, "The term Islamophobia is contested, and lacks a clear definition according to scholars of the field", should surely be something like "The term Islamophobia is contested and according to scholars of the field lacks a clear definition." Dougweller (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Quite right about the first sentence - it had been tweaked so often in the past 24 hours that I missed the fact it had lost a crucial "or". I've now reinstated this. And yes, although I don't think anyone would have misunderstood the meaning of the second sentence, the form you suggest is an improvement, so let's use it. :-) Alfietucker (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Or racism ??

The lead sentence is incorrect. We review the vast literature on the subject for several months last year Talk:Islamophobia/Archive_13#Racism.3F. No one could show that defining Islamophobia as racism was more than a minority opinion. We can see from the continued discussion above that it still is a minority opinion among reliable sources. Thus, the lead sentence should read "some consider racism" not "or racism." As it stands now it appears that all or most reliable sources believe Islamophobia can be one of the following: "prejudice against, hatred towards, irrational fear of, or racism" when it is clear that the vast majority of sources only agree with the first part. The "racism" definition is held as a possibility for a minority of sources--and we cite these sources in a footnote. Thus, the use of the word or is meant as an option for some sources not an option in the view of most sources. This should be clarified by rewriting the lead as follows:

Islamophobia is used generally to refer to prejudice against, hatred towards, or irrational fear of Muslims. Some consider it a form of racism.

Jason from nyc (talk) 11:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

That current wording is "Islamophobia is used generally to refer to prejudice against, hatred towards, irrational fear of, or racism towards Muslims." It does not say it is hatred, fear and racism, but hatred, fear or racism. Since racism is part of the standard definition in reliable sources, it should stay. TFD (talk) 11:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

It is not in all reliable sources but only some reliable sources. Thus, it should make it clear that "racism" is only an option for some sources. Thus your last statement is incorrect by omission. It should read: "Since racism is part of the standard definition in some reliable sources, it should stay." And I agree it should stay as a minority view and clarified as such. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Not every mention of Barack Obama says that he was born in Hawaii, so by your logic that would be a minority view. The standard definition is from the Runnymede Trust and there is no reason to consider it not mainstream. Incidentally, I suggest you read about Islam in mainstream sources and perhaps your approach to the topic will change. TFD (talk) 12:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Your analogue fails by a wide margin. Barack Obama is not a concept that has a genus and differentia. He an individual and being born in Hawaii is not the essence of the man. Clearly when articles define Islamophobia, or Chris Allen's book on the definition addresses the literature, no mention of racism means it is not racism. However, racism is mentioned--as a comparison, not as part of the definition. The whole purpose of Runnymede was to argue that the law designed to address racial violence “is no longer adequate” because it doesn't cover religious bigotry. The implication is that religion is another dimension and Islamophobia isn’t racism. Thus, it doesn’t define Islamophobia as racism but argues that racism may be involved. At best it says "Racial violence is all of a piece therefore with anti-Muslim prejudice." Obviously racism and xenophobia can be operative in an individual who is Islamophobic but they may not be. The intersection of these sets exist but they are overlapping categories. Special legal measures were implemented precisely because racism didn't cover it. Islamophobia isn't racism except in the mind of a few sources. We've established this many times over the last several years. The lead should make it clear that it is a minority view. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Allen does not define Islamophobia but says the Runnymede Trust definition is "widely accepted." If as you word it, the Runnymede Trust "argues that racism may be involved", then it is important to include "or racism" in the lead sentence. TFD (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Just the opposite. It argues for the distinction. In any group of bigots, religious prejudice, xenophobia, and racism may be involved but they are 3 distinct concepts. To say in case X that all three are involved is a sociological statement. It does not mean that they are all the same concept. On the contrary, one has to employ all 3 concepts to make the sociological statement. In the 90s when Runnymede was written they saw all 3 operative in the UK context. Wikipedia seeks to employ a broader context. Thus, in the post-911 world we have further studies and books. Allen doesn't take Runnymede at face value and either do other sources. In today's context, there is a clear distinction between racism and Islamophobia even as parallels are drawn. The view that islamophobia is a form of racism is a minority view and should be removed from the common definition used universally through all sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not they are three concepts, any one or a combination may be involved. TFD (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

No argument about that. The article, however, is about the concept of Islamophobia. The first sentence should define the concept, not explain possible connections to other phenomena. In those cases that Islamophobia is the result of racism, one is the cause and the other is the effect. "Smoking causes cancer" doesn't mean cancer is a type of smoking. The cause isn't the effect. The cause brings about the effect. Jason from nyc (talk)

The article's 3rd paragraph says: "Some scholars of the social sciences consider it a form of racism, although this is debated." If that's so, the lead sentence, which defines the concept, should not give the impression that all scholars believe racism is part of the definition. Our article has a contradiction that needs to be resolved. One way would be to break up the first sentence into two. Another would be to add the phrase "according to some" before "racism" in the lead sentence. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, the lead says it may be prejudice, hatred, fear or racism. See the definition of "or": it is a conjunction "used to indicate an alternative."[7] It does not mean that all values must be true, merely that one of them must be. TFD (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

But the way it is written it implies that all experts see "racism" as one of the options. The "or" in this sentence really means that "some" experts see this as a necessary part of Islamophobia. The footnote makes it clear that these experts say Islamophobia is anti-Muslim racism or cultural racism against Muslims. Thus, it should read "or according to some experts, racism" to make it consistent with the 3rd paragraph. Jason from nyc (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

No it does not. So you hate Islam but do not consider yourself a racist. No one said you were. But some people who hate Islam are. No doubt your hatred is based on a rational basis, such as the fact that their laws are based on the Old Testament, which you also hate. TFD (talk) 01:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Please, stick to the sources and reframe from personal attacks. The lead should reflect the sources. As we point out in paragraph #3, only some sources define Islamophobia as a form of racism. The vast majority compare Islamophobia to racism, and some look for causes of Islamophobia in other forms of bigotry or hatreds. But these sources don't define it as a form of racism. The lead should reflect the fact that the majority of sources don't see Islam as a form or racism. There should be a qualification as I suggested above. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The lead sentence is fine. It does not define it as a form of racism. That should be clear to anyone with a basic grasp of English. The only objection I could foresee would be one from people who dislike Islam and resent the slightest suggestion that their views may be racist. But their solution would be to discuss their concerns with the academic community that has accepted the Runnymede Trust definition rather than argue the logic here. TFD (talk) 03:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The lead suggests that Islamophobia can be seen as a type of racism which the 3rd paragraph clearly states is not generally accepted. Your claim that "the academic community ... has accepted" this is clearly contradicted by the sources and our acknowledgement of those sources in the 3rd paragraph. The lead contradicts the body of our article and our consensus that this is not a generally accepted part of the definition. You refuse to accept the diversity of the sources not even acknowledge what we have written in this regard. Your attacks and insinuations as to my motives is contrary to the working atmosphere at Wikipedia. This is not a legitimate substituted for the examination of the sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

If you cannot read it properly then there is nothing further to discuss. TFD (talk) 11:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You haven't been engaging in a discussion. You have merely restated your viewpoint that your favorite sources should be the defining sources. You have yet to acknowledge that we clearly state in the 3rd paragraph that experts dispute racism as part of the definition. And that should be reflected clearly in the lead. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Not my "favorite sources", but the definition the source you presented says is "widely accepted." It may be that the academics are wrong and the people they call "Islamophobes" are the voice of reason for Western civilization faced with an existential threat. But that does not mean we should misrepresent what the academics say. If we want to counter their views, there are better fora available. TFD (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The wording in the lead suggests that it is on-par with "prejudice against, hatred towards, irrational fear", which it is clearly not, as shown by the limited sources provided in the archived discussion linked above. Experts don't see it as "one or the other". Therefore Jason's proposed wording is more neutral and inline with sources that were provided. I don't see any reasonable arguments above, TFD seems to be ignoring the points Jason is putting forward.--Loomspicker (talk) 10:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Jason from nyc continues to quote this article, which says, "Some scholars of the social sciences consider it a form of racism, although this is debated." But that quote is misleading because the only source used that questions whether it is racism is Pascal Bruckner, who is a novelist not a social scientist, rejects the concept of Islamophobia, is considered a leading opponent of Islam, and has himself been accused of racism. The best we could say is that people accused of Islamophobia deny they are racists, but they also deny they are haters, xenophobes, etc. or even that they are Islamophobes. TFD (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be rephrased to make it clear that the opposition is from outside the academic world. // Liftarn (talk)

Is Racism part of a Fringe Definition?

Last year we spent several months reviewing the literature to understand the degree to which experts see racism as an inherent part of the definition of Islamophobia. (See Talk:Islamophobia/Archive_13#Racism.3F) Many of us here were part of that debate and a few here are new. User:Benjamil argued for racism as part of the definition and I argued against. I mention User:Benjamil since he did the most work of any of us compiling and reading sources. At no point did we ever consider the view that all sources or even the vast majority of sources consider racism as part of the definition. My position was that “racism” was part of the definition by a minority and possibly WP:Fringe group.

Benjamil summarized his tentative findings on 31 July 2012 (see “Update 2”) but was too busy to follow-up. Late August I suggested we rely on Chris Allen’s review of the literature [8] (as did User:Ankimai sometimes later) but Benjamil believed we should seek a broader consensus of experts. Allen would later write a whole book on the definition of Islamophobia “the result of a decade of thoughtful analysis.” [9].

After returning to this talk page last week, I’m shocked to find editors arguing that all or nearly all sources see racism as part of the definition. This has never been the case. During the debate last year we were all open to the possibility that a significant minority sees Islamophobia as racism regardless of whether we think this makes sense or whether it is absurd. We continue to see editors who are understandable bothered with this definition but I have no problem with the term degenerating into absurdity. I only want to report what the sources believe. It has just never been established that a significant minority exists to make racism a part of a definition that holds universally across all scholars and international boundaries. We state this in paragraph #3 when we write “Some scholars of the social sciences consider it a form of racism, although this is debated” as that summarizes our review of reliable sources. Clearly many here read the lead sentence in a manner contrary to this summary judgment. That’s the problem. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Very good points. We do have some problems in general dealing with the intersection of religion and bias in general. How "racist" is the Christian identity movement, which seems to have at least initially been a pretty straightforward "religious" movement? Islamophobia seems, from what I can see, to be primarily a cultural "phobia," which just, as it happens, tends to be focus the majority of its phobic response on a certain group of ethnically similar people, those of the Middle East and, I guess, South Asia? So, in a lot of cases, particularly considering the overwhelming majorities of Muslims in some areas, what seems to be a term which is accurately used to describe a cultural conflict can be, and sometimes apparently is, misused to describe a closely related conflict, a racial one. Kind of like saying I'm dislike the Jewish religion because I think Jews have big noses. (Making this up by the way, I don't actually think that, please no user talk page notices). Depending on the degree to which the term is apparently misapplied to a closely related idea, though, if it can be sourced, it might make sense to indicate that in the article as well, maybe even in the lead. If the "definition" of the man on the streets is significantly different from the academic "definition," it would be useful for our readers to know at least that the term is known to be used in other contexts. John Carter (talk) 02:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know there is no (or very few) academics that says islamophobia is not a form of racism or at least closely related. Some also say that the term islamophobia is not even necessary since it's all racism. There is a fringe group (mostly islamophobes, far right et.c.) that object it and that's why it's debated. // Liftarn (talk)

We went over this last year and the vast majority do not define Islamophobia as a racism. In specific cases experts might see Islamophobia, xenophobia and racism at play but the concepts are distinct. The comparison and contrast are always made. We came to a consensus that racism is not universally held to be part of the definition. Our lead defines the neologism and it should be universal: neither national, regional, partisan, nor editor-dependent. We need to insure that the lead reflects the consensus. Jason from nyc (talk)

I'm amused by your statement "Some also say that the term islamophobia is not even necessary since it's all racism." It is similar to a statement in our article: "Some argue that Islamophobia is real but is just another form of racism and does not require its own category." This statement was inserted into the article in Aug 29, 2006. [10]. Citation needed was added in Dec, ’07. This citation from an editorial in the Guardian was added on July 7, 2008: [11]. The headline reads: “Islamophobia should be as unacceptable as racism”. No where in the article does it say that Islamophobia is just racism. On the contrary, it compares the two. We have a sentence that was inserted as a POV and remains unsupported for seven years while the page is watched by 621 editors. It shows that very few actually read the sources. The article clearly deserves a POV label as we see above that considerations other that support from reliable sources is at play. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

And where is the source that says "new form of racism"? Dougweller (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

As always, Doug, glad you asked. See John Esposito, page 97 of “The Islamophobia Industry” “Biological racist discourses have now been repaced by what is called the ‘new racism’ or ‘cultural racist’ discourses.” Jason from nyc (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Good, but it needs to be attributed and sourced. Otherwise it just looks odd or OR. Dougweller (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you can give a quote so we can tell if it is actually relevant. I moved the citation down as it, as far as I can tell, does not belong in the header. // Liftarn (talk)

The back cover of the book has endorsements from Karen Armstrong, Tariq Ramadan, Mark Juergensmeyer, Reza Aslan and Eboo Patel. I wouldn't think you'd find these figures fringe. I did give a quote in the footnote. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, the reliability by association argument. Well, it still needs context so a full quote would be helpful. Also you can't use one source to change something that is sourced to multiple sources. // Liftarn (talk)

Huh? You said "fringe" and I showed broad acceptance. I have a quote but can't reproduce the whole book. I didn't delete anything that was there before. I added an appropriate qualifier that does not contradict the previous quotes and I discussed this in the talk. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I edited the text so it now says "a form of" as the sources differ if it is an old or new form of racism. // Liftarn (talk)

What sources say this is the traditional usage of the word racism? The general reader assumes that racism is an association of attributes based on nature, not nurture. To use the word for traits acquired through environmental influences (i.e. culture) is a new usage of the word. Our article on racism introduces this idea in the sentence that starts “Some definitions of racism ...” at the end of the second paragraph. This is a more recent usage of the term and the general reader will be puzzled when they read our article. Explicit mention must be made that this is a new usage or extended usage of an old term. That is why most sources that usage racism in this new manner preface it with the word “cultural” or some other qualifier. The article must address the general audience and not merely a partisan or scholarly audience. We have a reliable source that points this out (who is obviously writing for a general audience.) We should reflect the sources. I don't understand why one wouldn't want to explain to the readers that which many people (see many discussions above) will find surprising without an explanation. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Several sources say islamophobia is a form of racism (no prefixes) and we describe what the sources say. It sound like you are heading into WP:OR territory. // Liftarn (talk)

No need to qualify Islamophobia as possibly a "form" of racism. Jason from nyc, it is nature, not nurture. The hypothetical racist Islamophobe attributes to races of people negative qualities which they believe lead them to adopt Islam in the first place. TFD (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

One isn't born with religious beliefs. And every race is represented in Islam. Not all those who are seen as Islamophobic are seen to be racists in the traditional sense of physical racism. Islamophobia is typically contrasted with racism and xenophobia in the literature. The concepts are distinct in the literature with only a small minority conflating the terms. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Racists believe that people are born with a propensity toward beliefs and behavior. Hence Middle Eastern people are seen as more likely to become terrorists and not surprisingly most of them adopt a religion that advocates terrorism. Incidentally, while the literature may contrast racism and xenophobia, they are overlapping concepts. TFD (talk) 17:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Overlapping means they aren't the same. Yes, sometimes both apply. Yes, sometimes one causes the other. But the terms denote different ideas. That's why the most common phrase I've seen is "racism, xenophobia, and Islamophobia." All three, in this trilogy, are needed since neither reduces to the other. The overlap is highly dependent on location, culture, and sub-culture. In India, there is often no difference in racial ancestry to account for recent violence. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you are referring to "biological racism" versus "cultural racism". In reality there is no clear cut difference between the two and most racists have some sort of mix between the two. Especially since there is no real definition of what a "race" is. Anyway, this does not affect the article unless new sources are brought forward. // Liftarn (talk)

What is the article said in very clear terms that is was cultural racism we were talking about?-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Liftarn has put examples in reference #2. Modood is big in this area. Meer is represented there. It’s popular in the multicultural left. However, that’s a voice we have to make known to the reader. It’s just not the only approach. Cultural racism is different than racism (in the traditional sense) which hides behind religious bigotry (see #28). Miles talks about the interaction between the racism and Islamophobia #11. Our article is all over the place on the usage of the term racism: physical racism that is integrated with religious bigotry, a metaphor for bigotry, a new multicultural term of a negative view of another culture. That last, cultural racism, seems to be increasing but that’s my original research. It is worth reporting this approach even if it is still a minority position. I object to the impression left by the lead that it is universally accepted and I object to using the word racism without qualification as that will lead the reader to think we are talking about physical racism. We have to make clear that this is different usage of racism as the source make clear that physical racism and cultural racism are two different concepts. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

They are not different concepts. Racism is not a science, racists hate groups of people then rationalize their hatred ex post facto. So in the 80s it was "A-rab terrorism" (many of whom were Christian Arabs or Muslim Persians), now it is "Islamic terrorism." TFD (talk) 01:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

You're using the word racism as a metaphor for bigotry. We can't use metaphors in our definition nor your POV. Our definition uses sources that introduce a new concept (not a new phenomena) and that has to be made clear. Let's stick to the preponderance of sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Bigotry directed against a race is racism. TFD (talk) 06:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no general agreement among scholars on the relationship between Islamophobia and racism, which is what the article already says. Several sources can be cited in support of that statement; for instance, J. Cesari, "Islamophobia in the West: A comparison between Europe and the United States", in: J.L. Esposito & I, Kalin (eds.), Islamophobia: The Challenge of Pluralism in the 21st Century (2011), pp. 21-43, saying that "academics are still debating the legitimacy of the term and questioning how it differs from other terms such as racism, anti-Islamism, anti-Muslimness, and anti-Semitism" (p. 21); B. Erdenir, "Islamophobia qua racial discrimination: Muslimophobia", in: A. Triandafyllidou (ed.), Muslims in 21st-century Europe: Structural and cultural perspectives (2010), pp. 27-44, according to whom "there is no consensus on the scope and content of the term and its relationship with concepts such as racism, xenophobia, anti-Islamism, and anti-Muslimism" (p. 28); A. Shryock, "Introduction: Islam as an object of fear and affection", in: A. Shryock (ed.), Islamophobia/Islamophilia: Beyond the politics of enemy and friend (2010), pp. 6-25, stating that "[a]mong scholars who study older platforms for discrimination, like race, ethnicity, or class … the popularization of the Islamophobia concept has not been warmly received. ( …) In France (…) Islamophobia is still not a popular analytical term among scholars, many of whom think it is 'imprecisely applied to very diverse phenomena, ranging from xenophobia to anti-terrorism' (…). In the U.S., scholars and activists have tended to close this gap by focusing on 'the racialization of Islam' (…), or they have argued that Muslim identity is no longer exclusively religious, but has ethnic and racial dimensions as well (...). These approaches allow individial analysts to blend religious themes with color politics (…), in effect bringing Islamophobia into the same analytical frame" (p. 6); and J. Rana, Terrifying Muslims: Race and labor in the South Asian in the South Asian Diaspora (2011), p. 30, saying that "[m]any European scholars define discrimination in terms of xenophobia and prejudice, whereas scholars in the U.S. have long argued for the importance of talking about race and racism as valid concepts of systematic oppression. Similarly, many scholars disarticulate 'Islamophobia' from the concepts of race and racism, instead referring to it as a form of cultural prejudice and religiously based discrimination". Iblardi (talk) 09:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for a well-sourced explanation. As you note the experts disagree and we have and should continue to reflect that in the article. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

That's why we have the "or" between the definitions. You should also avoid putting stuff into the article that is not supported by reliable sources. // Liftarn (talk)

Construing Islamophobia, the repugnance of a religion, as a form of racism is definitely a minority view. It is worth mentioning these voices in the article, but it would be WP:undue weight to base the categorization on the opinions of a few. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Not a minority view. The sources discuss how Jews were historically reviled because of their cultural and religious differences as much as because of their race. This is no different. It is all a part of racism. Have you even read the sources? They move beyond the simplistic argument about racism having only to do with race. Binksternet (talk) 00:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be several views as there are several variants of the racism argument. There are those who see it as a concomitant of anti-Arab (in the US) or anti-Asian (i.e. Pakistani in the UK) physical racism. Some see (physical) racism as a cause of the anti-religion; others see the anti-religion as a cause of the (physical) racism. Others see both arising together. These are sociological theories, not definitions of Islamophobia. And they apply only to cases where both religious and racial prejudice are present. Of course there’s the case of Madood, who sees Islamophobia as cultural racism, i.e. Islam is part of a despised culture. This seems to warrant special treatment as he is in a minority. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my late arrival in this discussion. I've not been working on WP for a while, and have not been actively engaged with the literature on the topic for about the same time, but I would be very surprised if during the last year most of the scholars in the field had dismissed the racial link altogether. In my opinion, it's not very important that the lead states explicitly that some/many scholars consider islamophobia a form of racism. The discussion of whether such an equation would be a fringe view is also not as pivotal as it may seem: Even though very few, due to the nuanced approach inherent in scientific endeavors, might make as pointed a remark as that, I believe that equally few would diregard the racial element altogether. I commend User:Iblardi for their well-researched post, which may serve to illustrate this point. Also, it is naturally dependent on context. The question is, in my view, largely one of finding a way of putting this more concisely. Something along the lines of "many scholars consider racialised perspectives to be an inherent part of islamophobia", perhaps. I haven't got the time to follow this discussion further, unfortunately, but as my "name" was specifically brought up, it seemed appropriate to weigh in.

Best regards, benjamil ^talk/_edits 12:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I would be happy with that. What I'm not happy with is any attempt to have the article deny that racism and Islamophobia are inextricably linked (just as Christian identity and racism are). Jason, you quote a headline above. Headlines should never be part of our decision making, they are written by headline writers to grab attention, and I've seen them imply or state things not in the body of the newspaper artice or even contradict something in the article. Dougweller (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time to weigh in on this topic as I mentioned you worked hard on this topic last year. I used a wikilink to your name (and others) as I referred to everyone’s work. I think you are right that the nature of the connection[s] and context should be clarified. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Summary

So, do you have any reliable sources saying that islamophobia is not racism? // Liftarn (talk)

It is in the article. Lead summarizes the article. Jason from nyc (talk)

Please explain where. I find "there is no consensus on the scope and content of the term". That is not the same thing as a reliable source saying "islamophobia is not racism". Try again. // Liftarn (talk)

"The term Islamophobia is widely contested, and lacks a clear definition"

For the benefit of the editor who harps on the alleged "original research" behind this statement, here are the citations which are linked to it:

• Chris Allen. Islamophobia Ashgate, 2010
  

Quote: "Islamophobia is so multifarious and wide-ranging, it is not only difficult to incorporate it under a single neologism but it is also unclear where the boundaries between ‘what is’ and ‘what is not’ might be clearly - and rightly drawn."

• Chris Allen. "Islamophobia and its consequences" Centre for European Policy Studies
  

Quote: "Islamophobia remains a contested concept. ... Encompassing so many varied events, activities, actions and attitudes, the simplified terminologies and definitions have failed to understand or explain a phenomenon that has had such a dramatic impact."

• Erik Bleich "What Is Islamophobia and How Much Is There? Theorizing and Measuring an Emerging Comparative Concept" American Behavioral Scientist, volume 55 number 12 (December 2010), pages 1581-1600
  

"Islamophobia is an emerging comparative concept in the social sciences. Yet there is no widely accepted definition of Islamophobia that permits systematic comparative and causal analysis."

• Imhoff, Roland & Recker, Julia "Differentiating Islamophobia: Introducing a new scale to measure Islamoprejudice and Secular Islam Critique" Political Psychology, volume 33 issue 6 (December 2012), pages 811-824
  

Quote: "... there has been a steadily increasing awareness of the discrimination against Muslims based on their religion. Despite the widespread use of the neologism Islamophobia to refer to this phenomenon, this term has been harshly criticized for confounding prejudiced views of Muslims with a legitimate critique of Muslim practices based on secular grounds."

• Kandel, Johannes (August 2006). "Islamophobia – On the Career of a Controversial Term" Friedrich Ebert Foundation
  

Quote: "The criteria advanced by the Runnymede Trust for Islamophobia are too general, very heterogeneous and cover so broad a range of postulated humiliations, insults and forms of discrimination that one gets the impression that everything negative that Muslims experience from their non-Muslim environment is "Islamophobic"."

• Ed. Andrew Shryock Islamophobia/Islamophilia: Beyond the Politics of Enemy and Friend Indiana University Press, 2010: page 6
  

Quote: "Islamophobia is still not a popular analytical term among scholars, many of whom think it is “imprecisely applied to very diverse phenomena, ranging from xenophobia to anti-Terrorism” reducing complex forms of discrimination and government policy to a single concept that cannot adequately explain them."

• Ed. Anna Triandafyllidou; Burak Erdenir Muslims in 21st Century Europe: Structural and Cultural Perspectives Routledge, 2010: page 28
  

Quote: "... there is no consensus on the scope and content of the term and its relationship with concepts such as racism, xenophobia, anti-Islamism, and anti-Muslimism "

I can't see a reasonable argument which can suggest the statement is *not* supported by those citations, which are all linked to it both places where it appears in the article. Can anyone else? If so, please provide it. Alfietucker (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Your first source (Allen) begins by saying the definition of islamophobia provided by the Runnymede Foundation is "widely accepted as the definition of Islamophobia." That is basically what all sources say. You are taking his other comments out of context. TFD (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Then how do you explain the first paragraph of Islamophobia#Debate on the term and its limitations where the editor of the Runnymede publication from which the definition is taken clearly has issues with the word? That's before we consider the other sources which point out that the term has several definitions of its scope (e.g. Bleich, Kandel), which arguably only have in common the effect of shutting down discussion of issues connected with Islam (e.g. Shryock, Imhoff & Recker). Alfietucker (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing to explain. If someone presents a definition that becomes widely accepted then disowns it, it does not stop it from being widely accepted. The editor was a social scientist, not Jesus Christ, and people did not accept his definition because they had personal faith in his infallibility, but because they accepted what he wrote at the time. TFD (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

So you don't deny that the definition of Islamophobia "has been contested". As I understand it, widely means by more than two or three scholars: I see there's a good half dozen in the citations above, not to mention the former director of the Runnymede Trust Robin Richardson and such respectable published writers as David Goodhart, director of Demos and author of The British Dream. So what's your (or any other editor's) objection to the phrase "widely contested"? Alfietucker (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Where, TFD, does Allen say that? What passage are you referring to? Jason from nyc (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It is in the second sentence of the first paragraph of Chris Allen's "Islamophobia and its consequences". TFD (talk) 00:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

All that says is "Islamophobia is the shorthand way of referring to dread or hatred of Islam -- and, therefore, to fear or dislike of all or most Muslims." If that was all there was to say, our article would be one paragraph. What is disputed is what that dread and fear consists of. Here he says it "remains a contested concept" and he quotes Maussen: it "groups together all kinds of different forms of discourse, speech and acts, by suggesting that they all emanate from an identical ideological core, which is an 'irrational fear' (a phobia) of Islam." Consequently "definitions have failed to understand or explain a phenomenon that has had such a dramatic impact ..." If you want us to agree with the first sentence (sans racism) then that is a consensus which is achievable. And Allen is a good source. But that doesn't contradict the vast debate on what exactly this fear and dread encompasses and how it relates to other sociological parameters. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with TFD. All you're pretty much doing is wikilawyering for a particular bias. StuffandTruth (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

StuffandTruth - where exactly am I, or anyone else here, wikilawyering? Technically, you've just made an insult which suggests you haven't got a coherent response to the genuine issues being raised here. Maybe I'm wrong - over to you. Alfietucker (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You are defending your statement on the basis that it is not OR ("For the benefit of the editor who harps on the alleged "original research" behind this statement"). To which editor are you referring and where do they harp? Incidentally, accusing someone of "harping on" may be seen as insulting. Politeness is a two-way street. TFD (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I seemed rude by saying "harping on". Actually I was trying to be polite and not "point fingers"; but to avoid further misunderstanding, I meant Liftarn who has twice instated the tag to the second sentence of the first paragraph, originally with the comment "Not found in sources. Please explain" - which seems to me obtuse given what the citations to that sentence say. I removed the tag, after having looked at those citations (maybe I should have explained on the talk page, but I did leave the comment "removed OR tag - clearly stated in citations given"); only to see Liftarn tag the sentence again, this time without comment. So I started this section on the talk page, and decided to actually lay the citations out there (it occurred to me that perhaps Liftarn only saw the name ref and hadn't checked the full citation). Now, can we address this issue please? Alfietucker (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC) [p.s. I've just discovered that I mis-spelled Liftarn's name in my original post - sorry.]

Alfietucker is right that the term is highly contested. Not only do we have that in the footnote, but in the definitions section of the article, the concept is criticized in paragraphs 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 10. There is also the 8 paragraphs of the criticism section. The definition that is widely accepted involves fear and dislike (or hatred) but this raises more questions than it answers for the critics in the scholarly literature and public debate. The details are in the quotes above and all through out our article. It is just proper for the lead to summarize the article including any prominent controversies. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

There are disputes over the definitions of most abstract concepts and experts frequently disagree over which terminology should be used, particularly in studies of non-mainstream political views, for example, racism, zenophobia, extremism, terrorism, right-wing, conspiracism, populism, male chauvinism, elitism. Also, people who hold extreme views do not consider their views extreme and resent mainstream attempts to name and describe them. If Islam is an evil religion that aims to destroy Western civilization, surely if any terms are required it is to describe the people who ignore this fact or facilitate it.

So our challenge is to properly describe disputes without implicitly presenting the view of people accused of Islamophobia - that the term is meaningless, politically motivated, heavily disputed and inaccurate.

TFD (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we, as editors, should be swayed by the fear that we may *implicitly* present "the view of people accused of Islamphobia" - that seems to be worse than dismissing arguments for ad hominem reasons: i.e. if another editor thinks that an argument is *implicitly* (as opposed to explicitly) in line with one presented by those "who hold extreme views", then they may - according to your reasoning - challenge them and have it removed, regardless of whether that may or may not be the intention when the argument is presented. That seems to me to be a form of "thought crime" policing, or even POV-pushing which is against Wikipedia policy.

Sorry but you seem to what misunderstood what I wrote. And can you please stop being insulting in your postings, it makes other editors less likely to co-operate, is something you expect other editors not to do. TFD (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I too was uncomfortable with what you wrote. It seemed to imply that those who hold "that the term is meaningless, politically motivated, heavily disputed and inaccurate" are Islamophobes that should be dismissed from consideration. I was going to ignore it but I too worry that others may seem "less likely to co-operate" if they are going to be viewed as a bigot merely for citing authors who have qualms with the terminology. Perhaps you didn't mean to imply that but let's hold out the welcome mat for diverse views based on sound sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Better, I suggest, to dispassionately consider arguments put forward on their own merit(s), rather than automatically exclude them for fear they *may* be, or have been, used by those "who hold extreme views". Alfietucker (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

@TFD: I wrote an answer to your message, but it got lost in an edit-conflict with Jason's post. Basically I'm at a loss to understand what you found "insulting" in my last post: I simply described what seemed to me the implications of your argument, which Jason has just confirmed. Perhaps, with all due respect, you didn't express yourself very well: would you mind rewording your point to make it clearer? Also I hope you understand the final point I made in my last post (immediately above this). Alfietucker (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggest making the second sentence of the lead basically the Runnymede Trusts' definition of the term, attributed in-text to the Runnymede Trust. The third sentence should say something like "the use of the term is contested and according to [named reliable source(s)] lacks a clear definition." Badmintonhist (talk) 18:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence is close to the Runnymede definition if we drop the "racism" clause as we often have in the past. Perhaps that's what we should do since there is no universal usage of "racism" as part of the definition in the reliable sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, while the extent to which "Islamophobia" tends to entail racism should be discussed in the article, the formulation "racism against Muslims" comes across as a misusage. Racism against Christians? Badmintonhist (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Authors Nisha Kapoor (Lecturer in Sociology at the University of York), Dr. ‎Virinder Kalra (University of Manchester) and Dr. James Rhodes (University of Manchester) describe how the Runnymede Trust equates Islamophobia with anti-Muslim racism. They say that writer and researcher Arun Kundnani, a Fellow at the Open Society Foundation in New York, classifies Islamophobia as anti-Muslim racism in his The End of Tolerance: Racism in 21st Century Britain from 2007, ISBN 0745326463. Islamophobia is a form of racism against people of a different culture. Binksternet (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

All of which can be discussed in the body of the article. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

And, do you have any statements that this is a widely accepted definition? Jason from nyc (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Someone tell me again why we don't add this into the definition? It seems to satisfy the racism part as it addresses the racist stereotypes of Islam. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

That sentence ("Islamophobia is prejudice against, hatred towards, irrational fear of Muslims or racism against ethnic groups perceived to be Muslim.") looks fine to me. Alfietucker (talk) 08:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

But that is not supported by the sources. // Liftarn (talk)

Which ones? None are linked for that first sentence. Moreover, it's clearly logical and demonstrable that the perceptions of the bigot matter. What manner of source do you want me to unearth to get this added? I think anything related the the Sikh shootings will more than prove my point. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

There are several listed in the article. Anyway, if you would add such a sources the sentence would become "prejudice against, hatred towards, irrational fear of or racism against Muslims or ethnic groups perceived to be Muslim."". // Liftarn (talk)

That sentence would be fine with me. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

"widely contested"

Ok, first we have the words "widely contested". What is this sourced to? Neither of the sources say the term is "widely contested". // Liftarn (talk)

I thought that was evident from the number of citations (basic maths) - does that count as WP:OR? If so I will dig up a suitable citation which notes the differing definitions. Alfietucker (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that would be WP:OR. You will have to find at least one reliable source saying it is "widely contested". For all we know it might be a vocal minority or just the result of search bias. // Liftarn (talk)

"lacks a clear definition"

Then there is "lacks a clear definition". What is this sourced to? None of the sources say that. So it's either WP:OR or WP:SYN. // Liftarn (talk)

How about these:

• Chris Allen. Islamophobia Ashgate, 2010
  

Quote: "Islamophobia is so multifarious and wide-ranging, it is not only difficult to incorporate it under a single neologism but it is also unclear where the boundaries between ‘what is’ and ‘what is not’ might be clearly - and rightly drawn."

• Erik Bleich "What Is Islamophobia and How Much Is There? Theorizing and Measuring an Emerging Comparative Concept" American Behavioral Scientist, volume 55 number 12 (December 2010), pages 1581-1600
  

Quote: "Islamophobia is an emerging comparative concept in the social sciences. Yet there is no widely accepted definition of Islamophobia that permits systematic comparative and causal analysis."

• Imhoff, Roland & Recker, Julia "Differentiating Islamophobia: Introducing a new scale to measure Islamoprejudice and Secular Islam Critique" Political Psychology, volume 33 issue 6 (December 2012), pages 811-824
  

Quote: "Despite the widespread use of the neologism Islamophobia to refer to this phenomenon, this term has been harshly criticized for confounding prejudiced views of Muslims with a legitimate critique of Muslim practices based on secular grounds."

• Kandel, Johannes (August 2006). "Islamophobia – On the Career of a Controversial Term" Friedrich Ebert Foundation
  

Quote: "The criteria advanced by the Runnymede Trust for Islamophobia are too general, very heterogeneous and cover so broad a range of postulated humiliations, insults and forms of discrimination that one gets the impression that everything negative that Muslims experience from their non-Muslim environment is "Islamophobic"."

• Ed. Andrew Shryock Islamophobia/Islamophilia: Beyond the Politics of Enemy and Friend Indiana University Press, 2010: page 6
  

Quote: "Islamophobia is still not a popular analytical term among scholars, many of whom think it is “imprecisely applied to very diverse phenomena, ranging from xenophobia to anti-Terrorism” reducing complex forms of discrimination and government policy to a single concept that cannot adequately explain them."

• Ed. Anna Triandafyllidou; Burak Erdenir Muslims in 21st Century Europe: Structural and Cultural Perspectives Routledge, 2010: page 28
  

Quote: "... there is no consensus on the scope and content of the term and its relationship with concepts such as racism, xenophobia, anti-Islamism, and anti-Muslimism "

Alfietucker (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, where does they say so? "there is no widely accepted definition" can be sourced. There are obviously clear definitions. The problem is that not everyone agrees on them. // Liftarn (talk)

There is a "widely accepted definition" as reliable sources tell us (see next section below) Jason from nyc (talk) 11:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Trivial and (IMHO) makes us look silly

It's a sociological phenomenon - of course its definition is contested. So what? It's fine to say that the definition is controversial or contested, but not in the first paragraph. Racism is a better model. I like the way the second paragraph starts, "The exact definition of racism is controversial" The way the first paragraph is worded at the moment seems denigrating. I'm guessing not many editors here studied sociology? And - an aside - both sentences in the first paragraph would make an English teacher cringe. Dougweller (talk) 13:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Dougweller - I'd be the first to admit I have not studied sociology at university level, but I do read sociological texts (as does, clearly, several editors in the on-going discussion). In any case, the article is not aimed at qualified sociologists, but at readers who want to find out a) the meaning of "Islamophobia"; b) how it is applied; c) its implications. The first two sentences, as they stand at present, are admittedly not elegant but they're in perfectly correct and comprehensible English. Alfietucker (talk) 13:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I wish I hadn't combined two points. Racism is still a better model. It isn't the most important thing about Islamophobia that people don't agree on the definition - people will never agree on its definition any more than they will agree on the definition of racism, that doesn't belong in the first paragraph. Dougweller (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I am someone who studies sociology (at a graduate level) and Dougweller is right. There is no controversy about the basic premises, just the finer details. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Additional note: one reason the definition of racism is debated is because of how it's defined in terms of level of analysis. Some scholars say racism should only be used to refer to structural/institutional level issues where as "prejudice" and "discrimination" should be used for interpersonal issues. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)