Jump to content

Talk:Islamophobia/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19

History of the term

I removed this:

</nowiki> Richardson states that the first English print usage was Edward Said's 1985 article "Orientalism Reconsidered".[1] Another early documented use of the word was by the American news magazine Insight on the News in 1991, used to describe Russian activities in Afghanistan,[2] and this is the usage listed by the Oxford English Dictionary.[3] </nowiki>

because whoever Richardson is, he/she has it wrong. The word is first attested to in English per OED in 1923. Furthermore, "the usage listed by" the OED is wrong in a number of ways. There are multiple attestations in the OED, so the definite article is wrong, and this is not amongst them, so that claim is wrong too. I replaced it with correct information cited to the actual OED.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

That's fine for the history section. But the obscure and rare usage of the term before the 1990s is less important than the influence of the Runnymede Trust report (RTR) for the current definition, widespread usage, and recent debate. Almost all studies touch base with the RTR. Thus, the lead is better served by restoring the influence of the RTR for the subject as currently debated. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
This sentence: As currently used, the term entered contemporary discourse with the publication of the Runnymede Trust's report in 1997. Is manifestly unacceptable. First of all, it's manifestly false. Note the OED has this example from the Times of London in 1994: 1994 Times 28 June 21/5, I suspect that Islamophobia, under the guise of fundamentalist scaremongering, is being deliberately promoted in the overseas media. This is one instance amongst others quoted there that are earlier than the Runnymede Trust report. Second, even if it were true, it's far too trivial for the first paragraph of the lead section.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The sources overwhelmingly refer to the RTR as the source of the current usage and its widespread usage. Remember, as you pointed out, this is not an article about the term but the concept. It's not a dictionary but an encyclopedia article on the idea and phenomena as sources tell us. Rare usages before the RTR are interesting as historical background but the modern era really starts with the RTR as most sources note (usually in their first page.) It's not clear the lead has to say anything about the history of the word. However, so many of the sources use the RTR as a spring board that if some piece of history is included in the lead, surely it should be the RTR. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Can you give sources that say that and/or add material about it to the body of the article to support its prominence in the lead? As the article stands now I don't see how such a sentence is supportable.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Here are a few of the sources we use. They mention the occasion usage of the word prior to Runnymede, but for them the subject really starts in the 1990s with Runnymede playing a major role in the subject in the mind of the public and scholars:

[1] change in meaning in the 1990s; Runnymede mentioned in 1st paragraph

[2] 1st sentence: Runnymede

[3] See title

I can't go into the books right now but I remember the same emphasis. The subject takes off post Runnymede. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The first source there says "The term has been used increasingly amongst political circles and the media, and even Muslim organizations, especially since the 1997 Runnymede Report" This doesn't support the sentence we now have in the lead because of the hedge "especially."
The second source says in 2006 that "Widely accepted as the definition of Islamophobia, and given the report’s impact, it might come as some surprise that only five years ago, the term and concept of Islamophobia had little discursive relevance or value beyond the UK." That would be in 2001. The source is silent on the use of the term in the UK prior to 2001, so it also doesn't support the sentence we currently have in the lead.
The third source says "The term came to be formally coined and defined in a report titled Islamophobia: A Challenge For Us All, published in the United Kingdom in 1997 by the Runnymede Trust" This is factually wrong, so I don't see why we should believe anything it says about it. I know that Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus is fallacious in some contexts, but if we're relying on a source for information about the usage of a word and it's flat-out wrong about when the word was coined, I don't see how we can consider it reliable.
I'm not opposed to talking about the influence of the report on the use of the word, but I think we need to find a more nuanced way to do it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not saying the word was originated by Runnymede and neither is anyone else. They stress Runnymede's role in setting the terms of the debate. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Read our section “History of the term.” The word was used in many ways. Chris Allen notes it was used by fundamentalists to criticize liberal Muslims. Others found similar usages to current usage (anti-Muslim bigotry) but that was in retrospect. There is little continuity according to our sources as the word seems to be re-invented as needed. The exceptions you found are interesting as few people, prior to 9/11, talked about Islamic terrorism. It was always Arab terrorism. The common complaint in the US was about anti-Arab prejudice. In the UK is was very different (as a few of our sources point out.) The UK had a large Pakistani immigrant class that was too often an underclass. Here xenophobia was at play. In the US, Muslims tend to be more successful and middle class (voted Republican prior to 9/11 with 70-90% voting for Bush) than the general population. Thus, the growth of the subject in the UK when there was little usage of the word in the US. Our sources document changes in the word in each decade. We can do original research and note the growth of the usage in the decades before; but our sources give Runnymede an important role in advancing the concept and subject, even when they criticize Runnymede. Again, we need not mention the history of the evolution of the term at all. But if we do, it seems undue weight to pick the occasional use in 1923 or 1980. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I realize you're not saying that the term originated with Runnymede, you're saying As currently used, the term entered contemporary discourse with the publication of the Runnymede Trust's report in 1997. When I argued above that the sources you provided don't support the sentence, I meant this sentence. They don't support it. The first says "especially since the report." That's very different from "the term entered contemporary discourse with the report." The second says that before 2001 the term was little heard outside the UK. That's silent on whether the term entered contemporary discourse with the report. The third thinks the term was invented by the report. That's just wrong. We don't have to discuss the evolution of the term. In fact, I'm not so very convinced that the term evolved all that much, but in any case, I don't think we have good sources for discussing the evolution of the term. I just don't want it stated as a fact that "the term entered contemporary discourse with the report" when that's so obviously untrue and we don't have sources which support it in my opinion. We can probably work something out based on your first source, but I would really like to see us get the sense of the "especially" in there. That seems right to me. It was in contemporary discourse before the report, but the use increased in the mid 1990s, especially after the report. Like that.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
All of this is getting too far into the realm of original research. We have conflicting sources in front of us, so it would not be wise to try and establish an official history, in the absence of such an official history stated by multiple sources. Binksternet (talk) 05:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
And how do you see that playing out in practical terms with respect to the lead section?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
He favors leaving it out (see his edit) and I'm inclined to agree. It always struck me as specifically British and not universal. While Runnymede may be important in furthering the use of the word, that may now be less important to the lead. But I'm open to arguments that it should be in the lead. User talk:Rainbowofpeace, below brings up the topic of a neologism. It's long been in the lead so I assumed there was a strong consensus for it as WP:NEOLOGISM is an issue for Wikipedia. Thus, we've removed all history of the origin, rise, and common use of the term. But perhaps its time for that to go. There are more important matters for the lead, especially given the large number of controversies about the concept and its use. We selected one in the lead paragraph (racism), I added another. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello, maybe you misunderstand me. I've stated very clearly that I believe it is not a neologism. The usage goes back at least to 1982 which as I've said below is the same time another word which is heavily controversial for similar reasons was introduced (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome aka AIDS). Both of these words are about 32 years old. There have been a ton of words that have been established in that time period. Do you really think we need to jeopardize Wikipedia by listing what would surely amount to at least thousands of articles as neologisms? I STRONGLY advise against that for this issue. 32 years is older than I am by 10 years.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 12:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing last night. There's no reason to call it a neologism. As you say, many if not most words are neologisms. We're not going over to quark, neurosis, or t-cell and trying to force the descriptor "neologism" into their leads. I can just imagine it: Sure, your bombs blow up, but, after all, "thermonuclear" is a neologism.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Uses of term prior to Runnymede Report

NB these links are super-unstable. If they're not working right try again or close tab before opening next. I can provide quotes if necessary.

— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

A few more:

— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Google ngram viewer data

It doesn't seem to be possible to get raw numbers out of this thing, although maybe I'm missing something, and obviously we can't tell the sense in which the word is used, and it's true there's a spike in 1997, but really, I don't think the assertion that the Runnymede thing was the beginning of the modern usage is tenable at all:

— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I think this is fairly ridiculous. The fact of the matter is that the word existed and was used before the Runnymede Report. Does that mean I'm debating that the Runnymede Report brought it center stage and made the world more aware. No. Absolutely not. However I think that the purpose of those wanting the Runnymede Report to be the starting point is to attempt to make it appear to be a neologism. I'm sorry but we have definite sources going back to 82 and a possible going back to 76. And realistically we have words that are newer than that which don't face the same scrutiny such as AIDS was also first used in 1982. The fact of the matter is I do believe that usage before the Runnymede Report was rare but most certainly existent and therefore think it should be mentioned in the history of the term.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Controversies in the lead

According to WP:LEAD "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." We mention that there are controversies and discuss one: racism. However, equally prominent in our article is the misuse of the word to suppress criticism of Islamism.

On Islamism we have “Cesari writes that "academics are still debating the legitimacy of the term and questioning how it differs from other terms such as racism, anti-Islamism, …” “Islamophobia is sometimes misused, those who claim that hatred of Muslims is justified as opposition to Islamism actually undermine the struggle against Islamism.” “Roger Kimball argues that the word “Islamophobia” is inherently a prohibition or fear of criticizing of radical Islam.” ”… warning against the use of the term Islamophobia to prevent criticism of "Islamic totalitarianism”. “… the term was invented … in order to denounce what he feels is legitimate criticism …”

My recent edit, reverted by Doug, was to give a fully description of the controversies and not just arbitrarily single out one. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

What I reverted was "Commentators charge its been abused to suppress criticism of Islamism." Besides the grammar ('its' is possessive, 'it's' is a contraction which we wouldn't use), I don't see how that is a summary. We already have "both the term and the underlying concept have been criticized. Scholars have defined it as a type of racism, but this has been contested." So we are saying clearly that term and concept are criticized in the 2nd sentence of the lead. Your Cesari quote says nothing about suppression of criticism. I don't understand how your sentence relates to the second quote - perhaps you can clarify that. Kimball doesn't mention Islamism. And Bruckner is talking about Islamic fundamentalists in the 1970s, not the current use of the term by non-"Islamic fundamentalists" - in fact the Bruckner bit might be better elsewhere - it seem more about the history of the term. Dougweller (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I meant to use the Paul Jackson quote, not the Cesari quote. Here's what our article says about Jackson: "Paul Jackson, in a critical study of the anti-Islamic English Defence League, argues that the term Islamophobia creates a stereotype where “any criticism of Muslim societies [can be] dismissed ...” The term feeds “a language of polarised polemics ... to close down discussion on genuine areas of criticism ...” Consequently, the term is “losing much [of its] analytical value”." Jason from nyc (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
They don't all use the term "Islamism." Some use "radical Islam." However, they are all making the same point (except Cesari who makes a more general point about the relationship) that the term "Islamophobia" is abused to suppress critical assessment of fundamentalism, radicalism, political Islam, or Islamism. I'm not quoting them; I'm summarizing their view that the term is used to suppress critical debate. How would you phrase it? Jason from nyc (talk) 14:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

I think some mention of the information is justified because there's a lot in the body about this. We had "Commentators charge its been abused to suppress criticism of Islamism." How about something like "Commentators charge that the concept of Islamophobia has been abused to marginalize criticism of Islamism by conflating it with prejudice against Muslims."— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

That seems reasonable and inline with much of what is said in the article. I'm not wedded to the word Islamism as opposed to "more radical variants of Islam." However some would say that Islamism isn't a bona fide variant of Islam. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The lead needs to summarise the article. No question about that or that at the moment it leaves stuff out. This is probably among the things that need to be included, and that's a better version. Although Jason brings up an interesting point, I think 'radical variants' is better.
Can me move the Bruckner stuff? Dougweller (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely. "Radical variants" is better. I don't like the word "Islamism" for very many reasons anyway, not least of which is that people who use it want to criticize the word "Islamophobia" while committing the etymological fallacy but refuse to see that their arguments used on "Islamism" would render it meaningless.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, let's go with that. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources in the lead

Teaksmitty wants to take this: The causes and characteristics of Islamophobia are still debated. Some commentators have posited an increase in Islamophobia resulting from the September 11 attacks while others have associated it with the increased presence of Muslims in the Western world. out of the lead because it's not sourced. Here they take it out again with the edit summary Everything need a source.

Now, WP:LEADCITE says: Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. Now, there is a citation for every part of that removed material in the body of the article. Sometimes more than one citation. Do we need to put them in the lead again? Why? Is the material so very hard to find in the body of the article? Perhaps Teaksmitty can explain what part of the removed material is so problematic that it needs to be cited in the lead because it's not adequately supported in the body? How do others feel about cluttering up the lead with inline cites?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. The lead section is a summary of facts in the article body. As far as that is true, the lead section need not be supported by references. Binksternet (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this: *''Islam: The Arab Imperialism'' ([http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=790 book available online]) It seems to fail inclusion criteria for both "Further reading" section and "External links" section due to being self-published propaganda. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk • contribs) 15:26, 5 April 2014

I do not object to having links to notable islamophobic texts, because they are of value to students of the subject. I do not know if this book which was by a prominent islamophobe, Anwar Shaikh, is sufficiently notable. TFD (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Islamics

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
WP:HORSE - Been discussed multiple times. Etymological fallacy

can Anti-Islamic people,groups,organizations be branded as Islamophobic even if they don't have any fear of mohammed,his glorious religion of piece err paece & muslims ,if u look at Gujarat 2002 riots the attackers had no fear of islam or muslims and fearlessly without any phobia slaughtered muslims, can calling them as Islamophobes be justified. Rim sim (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Closing EvergreenFir (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Islamophobia bill in Belgium

There has been talk on recent years of Belgium criminalizing 'Islamophobia' [4].

According to the authors of the resolution, a person would be guilty of Islamophobia if he or she:

  • Considers Islam to be a single monolithic bloc, closed and static, incapable of adapting to new situations;
  • Considers Islam to be separate and "different," devoid of having any aims or shared values ​​with other cultures, not influenced by other cultures and not influencing other cultures;
  • Considers Islam to be inferior to the West, to be barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist;
  • Considers Islam to be violent, threatening and supportive of terrorism, actively engaged in a 'clash of civilizations';
  • Considers Islam to be a political ideology, used for political and military purposes to establish its hegemony;
  • Rejects out of hand criticisms made by Islam of 'the West';
  • Shows hostility towards Islam to justify discrimination and social exclusion of Muslims;
  • Accepts hostility toward Muslims as natural and normal.

This definition of Islamophobia, which is based on a 1997 report published by the London-based Runnymede Trust, would effectively outlaw any critical discussion of Islam in Belgium under the guise of combatting racism.

Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

criminalizing 'Islamophobia' should be added to the article. Why hasn't it?
Thank you OxAO (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC) (UTC)
Got any reliable sources? I did find http://www.expatica.com/be/news/belgian-news/far-right-belgian-could-face-massive-fine-for-mecca-slur_101643.html but that is about the publication of private information "based on racial or ethnic origin". It also looks like islamophobia is pretty much accepted in Belgium.[5][6] // Liftarn (talk)

Neologism

Wouldn't "Islamaphobia" be correctly classified as a political neologism? Kezzer16 (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It would have been when it was first used, as would every other political term. It is included in "Category:Political neologisms". Why do you ask? TFD (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Simply because it's not anywhere on this article. Kezzer16 (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
See archives. [7] Note in particular the long list of usages of the term in this discussion [8] which demonstrates that the word is in everyday usage in sources which don't feel obliged to explain that the word is a neologism. Incidentally,the earliest use of the word in its modern sense that we've been able to locate seems to date back to 1970, [9] suggesting that as neologisms go, it isn't exactly new... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
That is your opinion Andy. But yet you evendo admit it is a neologism. Furthermore isolated usage in 1970 did not achieve notability- The word is an agenda driven contrivance used Almost exclusively by Islamophilic ultraliberals Seeking to throttle all criticism of Islamofascism- English WP not even possible under lobal caliphate you empowerva deletionistic edits, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilishlyhandsome (talk • contribs) 20:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Wow. Um, this page is to discuss the article, not the subject - no one is going to listen to comments like that or take you seriously. You've been around a long time, you must know about RS, Verify, etc. Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

get serious

Sorry cursor jumps I needed to resection tonrespond

Doug I am disappointed by your atavck. In past you have been voice of reason.

FYI not dicussing topic discusing biased acceptance of ploy neologism

Just because it is obviously Zi have views is irrelevsnt,

Grumy reverters bias the page obscuring that thisisaPOV neologism as thousands of writers agree . Eg Hitchens.

Andy reverts without talk to present the ideological framng conocted b Runnymede etalasif scientificfact,

Thus millionsdotkemy pointseriously.

Please speak for yourselfthen


In particular I made a series of stepped edits today to allow reversion to at Least one minimally controversial level of modification. Andy the Grump just reverted all three steps without discussions. It is he you should be taking to task for stretching the presumption of WP:GoofFaith

Hence I reestablished the minimal change. Islmophobia is a coinage a portmanteau and neologism which many regard as a piece of orrdnance n ideological warfare. However that widely supported opinion is NOT what this edit conflict is about. At this point I seek only support for establishing that Islamophobia is a term....next step is to clean up the shoddy writing style which is redundant. Also. Whydoes ths man insist ondeleting the chracterization "discrimination"????Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)SignedDevilishlyhandsome no tilde via phone — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilishlyhandsome (talk • contribs) 23:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I viewed your comments about "Islamophilic ultraliberals" as an attack on editors who think this is a useful and meaningful phrase. I'm tempted to revert you because it is unnecessary to tell readers that the word is a word - term means a word or phrase used to describe a thing or to express a concept - but so what? Basically we are telling people that Islamophobia is a word - but I think our readers will all know that. The 'neologism' bit is a red herring and irrelevant (and seems to be being used to diss it). Of course it is pov in a sense - as is the word 'anti-Semite'. So what again? In fact your suggested changes were all redundent. " a term for prejudice discrimination antipathy" is not only poor English it is just adding other words meaning prejudice. "Chilling" is much better expressed in the second paragraph which says "Some commentators charge that the concept of "Islamophobia" has been used to dismiss any criticism of Islam, including its radical variants, by equating it with prejudice and racism."
So how do you justify using 'term'? How does it add to the lead? Dougweller (talk) 08:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Achieving quality NPOV

Doug I appreciate your points. We can discuss each of them. What caused me to questionanother editor was that he racks up a huge edit count by taking five seconds to revert people``s painstaking, often time consuming work over spurious editcoments that have nobearing on the actual edit. Andy, the issue is nt *weasel words* nor is it sorcing.

One. Is it preferable or not that lede not include refs iff summarizing ponts made in text below and referenced?

Two Either way, what business has anyone deleting *discrimination* in a listing of Islphobic characteristics as *unsourced*when it is part of a list of near-synonyms which are themselves unsorced?

Three Islamophobia as a is attaining to legal status in some jursdictions As such it is normal dictin to list closey reated concpts. How is it hereby made a^weasel word^ just because you don't likeit

Four Is it claimed that discrimination v Muslims is not Islamophobia?

Five Why delete that as *unsourced weasel * but leave in the similar explanatory words which are equally unsourced. Six so I expect AGrmp to lay off the qwikand easy revrt button and devote his high experience to BUILDING ok? But yes we can discuss possible redundancy issu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilishlyhandsome (talk • contribs) 23:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's rarely a good idea to clutter up the lead with stuff that is referenced in the article. I don't see a need to use synonyms, if the words aren't actually the same that's another issue and needs to be discussed with specific examples. I'm not clear what you are getting at about weasel words so again need examples. As for four, again, specific examples. It's too difficult to have generalised discussions as that can lead to talking at cross purposes. Dougweller (talk) 09:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Should coinages, neologisms and controversial abstractions be identified as a different class of noun

Should coinages, neologisms and controversial abstractions be identified as a different class of noun

This is a substantive issue which goes back to nominalism vs realsm, Platonic Idea and Wittgenstein. While any noun under encyclopedic treatment is trivially a term visitors are entitled to being alerted when a term, though widely accepted in some academic circles is vehemently rejected, challenged or at best disused unused and ignored by a substantial plurality. In other words when it is itself notable as a term good bad or indifferent then the fact that it is a term for a questinable challenged or controversial abstraction which may or may not have a reality of its own, best NPOV practice would be to include that characterisation, that it is a term for X, rather than the bald assertion that it is X. Just as Van Goghs Starry Night is a painting of night sky not an astronomical proof of anything Peace a Love FolsDevilishlyhandsome (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Nope, I don't see this as necessary. The lead makes it clear that it is controversial, that's enough. Dougweller (talk) 09:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Racism

Islam is not an ethnic group.

Wikipedia must take a neutral and scientific stance. It is impossible to be racist to Muslims based on Islamophobia alone because Islam is not an ethnic group. There is no genetic code for Islam.

There is a political motive in falsely associating a religion with a racial group and Wikipedia should not associate with the racism of associating a race with a religion.

If Islamophobia is racist then Islam represents an ethnic group or a racial group. To associate a religion with an ethnic/racial group is racism, therefore to falsely assume that 'islamophobia is racism' is racism. Wikipedia should not include any blatant racism.

User:AndyTheGrump: For the purposes of ensuring that the article "makes it clear that some sources" consider Islamophobia racism, is this opening better?

Islamophobia is a term for prejudice against, hatred towards, or fear of Muslims. While the term is widely recognized and used, both the term and the underlying concept have been criticized.

Some scholars have defined it as a type of racism, but this has been contested. Some commentators charge that the concept of "Islamophobia" has been used to dismiss any criticism of Islam, including its radical variants, by equating it with prejudice and racism.


Reference is made to it's definition as a form of racism once, rather than twice, which reflects the extent to which this view is held. Hayek79 (talk) 11:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It violates "neutrality" by providing parity between mainstream views of Islamophobia and opponents of the concept. While the term Islamophobia can be misused, the wording suggests that it is typically misused. The term racism can also be misused, but that does not make it a meaningless concept. TFD (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Even some of the harshest critics of Islam concede that certain forms of an anti-Islamic or a critical-Islamic position may turn into a discrimination of people just for 'appearing Muslim' or being from the middle east (i.e. doesn't automatically mean you are a Muslim.) - for example a man with a long beard and tanned skin, in reality could be an atheist etc. from Cuba but will be looked upon as an Islamic fundamentalist Arabian by appearance alone. As for whether that is racism is up to the debate already raging. Would you present that as well? I'm not sure if that would fix anything to mention the situational factor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.176.102 (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

If someone thinks they can identify Muslims by physical appearance, it is a sign that they perceive Muslims as a race. TFD (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Not necessarily - in any case, we can't edit here according to such a claim without a reliable source to back it up. :-) Alfietucker (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's own page on the subject; "Some definitions of racism also include discriminatory behaviors and beliefs based on cultural, national, ethnic, caste, or religious stereotypes." There are other words I've heard being suggested such as "creedism" or "religious intolerance" to explain this difference between "racism" in the strict sense and what is perceived by Muslims by non-Muslims, but they still have not caught on and do not have the same weight of hate as the word racism. Why not include in the article this idea of racism not *strictly* being accurate in describing Islamophobia, but the other ways in which it is very similar? Patwinkle (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

What's important is to describe what Islamophobes think, as described in reliable sources. We cannot say Islam is not a race and therefore Islamophobia cannot be racism in the same may be cannot say there are no races of mankind and therefore no one can be a racist. Islamophobes not only condemn Islam as a religion, but see it as the religion held by a race or races of people and furthermore their race is the reason they adopted that religion. Or at least some of the sources used in the article say that. TFD (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
the idea of it being racially motivated to groups who may be perceived to be Muslim can be justified, if one looks at the murder of the Sikh (brown, turbaned, bearded) who was shot after 9/11, or the threats to a very integrated Hindu American who shares little but the colour of her skin with a stereotypical terrorist. It's the same as neo-Nazis may analyse somebody's facial features or political beliefs and conclude that they are "Jewish". '''tAD''' (talk) 12:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Nathan Lean news piece, plus opinion pieces by Greenwald and Hussain

First, I misplaced the edit quoting Chomsky in the media section, but I don't know where it should be placed, though I think it should be included in the article.
Can the three most prominent New Atheists be taken to be representative of the movement as a whole? If so, should "New Atheism" be described under ideologies? Or should "New Atheists" be described under groups alleged to promote Islamophobia. There are characterizations for both (e.g., Hussain on Harris et al. as ideologues), and (e.g., Greenwald quote below on promoting Islamophobia). Lean does both (see below) in a news piece (can be stated without attribution?).

  • Moreover, not that the issue is already covered on the New Atheism page under Criticism[10], to which I just added a brief statement.

Second, the article by Lean in Salon is a news piece, not opinon.
Lean[11] is author of this award winning book, the title of which was underlined text is the title of a bookbook. Here's a link to the Youtube video featuring Chomsky[12].

Quotes from Hussain:

What Harris and those like him represent is the time-honoured tradition of weaponised racism in the guise of disinterested scientific observation.
what is being pursued today by individuals such as Harris and others under the guise of disinterested observation is something far more insidious. By resurrecting the worst excesses of scientific racism and its violent corollaries, Harris is heir to one of the most disreputable intellectual lineages in modern history.
While those individuals who have provided the intellectual ammunition for the excesses of the present era will inevitably find themselves as dishonoured as their racist predecessors, in the present they should nonetheless be recognised as the dangerous ideologues which they are.
Just as it is incumbent upon Muslims to marginalise their own violent extremists, mainstream atheists must work to disavow those such as Harris who would tarnish their movement by associating it with a virulently racist, violent and exploitative worldview.http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/04/20134210413618256.html]

Quotes from Greenwald:

That said, what I did say in my emails with Harris - and what I unequivocally affirm again now - is not that Harris is a "racist", but rather that he and others like him spout and promote Islamophobia under the guise of rational atheism.

Contrary to the assumptions under which some Harris defenders are laboring, the fact that someone is a scientist, an intellectual, and a convincing and valuable exponent of atheism by no means precludes irrational bigotry as a driving force in their worldview. In this case, Harris' own words, as demonstrated below, are his indictment.
…Harris defenders such as the neoconservative David Frumwant to pretend that criticisms of Harris consist of nothing more than the claim that…"it's OK to be an atheist, so long as you omit Islam from your list of the religions to which you object." That's a wildly dishonest summary of the criticisms of Harris
Harris… has insisted that there are unique dangers from Muslims possessing nuclear weapons, as opposed to nice western Christians (the only ones to ever use them) or those kind Israeli Jews: "It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of devout Muslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence." In his 2005 "End of Faith", he claimed that "Islam, more than any other religion human beings have devised, has all the makings of a thoroughgoing cult of death."
Indeed, he repeatedly posits a dichotomy between "civilized" people and Muslims: "All civilized nations must unite in condemnation of a theology that now threatens to destabilize much of the earth."
As this superb review of Harris' writings on Israel, the Middle East and US militarism put it, "any review of Sam Harris and his work is a review essentially of politics": because his atheism invariably serves - explicitly so - as the justifying ground for a wide array of policies that attack, kill and otherwise suppress Muslims. That's why his praise for European fascists as being the only ones saying "sensible" things about Islam is significant: not because it means he's a European fascist, but because it's unsurprising that the bile spewed at Muslims from that faction would be appealing to Harris because he shares those sentiments both in his rhetoric and his advocated policies, albeit with a more intellectualized expression.
Whether Islamophobia is a form of "racism" is a semantic issue in which I'm not interested for purposes of this discussion. The vast majority of Muslims are non-white; as a result, when a white westerner becomes fixated on attacking their religion and advocating violence and aggression against them, as Harris has done, I understand why some people (such as Hussain) see racism at play: that, for reasons I recently articulated, is a rational view to me. But "racism" is not my claim here about Harris. Irrational anti-Muslim animus is.[13]

Other quotes from Lean (aside from Chomsky):

The New Atheists, they are called, offer a departure from the theologically based arguments of the past, which claimed that science wasn’t all that important in disproving the existence of God. Instead, Dawkins and other public intellectuals like Sam Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens suffocate their opponents with scientific hypotheses, statistics and data about the physical universe — their weapons of choice in a battle to settle the scores in a debate that has raged since the days of Aristotle. They’re atheists with attitudes, as polemical as they are passionate, brash as they are brainy…The New Atheists became the new Islamophobes, their invectives against Muslims resembling the rowdy, uneducated ramblings of backwoods racists rather than appraisals based on intellect, rationality and reason. “Islam, more than any other religion human beings have devised, has all the makings of a thoroughgoing cult of death,” writes Harris, whose nonprofit foundation Project Reason ironically aims to “erode the influence of bigotry in our world.”
For Harris, the ankle-biter version of the Rottweiler Dawkins, suicide bombers and terrorists are not aberrations. They are the norm. They have not distorted their faith by interpreting it wrongly. They have lived out their faith by understanding it rightly. “The idea that Islam is a ‘peaceful religion hijacked by extremists’ is a fantasy, and is now a particularly dangerous fantasy for Muslims to indulge,” he writes in “Letter to a Christian Nation.”
That may sound like the psychobabble of Pamela Geller. But Harris’s crude departure from scholarly decorum is at least peppered with references to the Quran, a book he cites time and again, before suggesting it be “flushed down the toilet without fear of violent reprisal.”
How the New Atheists’ anti-Muslim hate advances their belief that God does not exist is not exactly clear. In this climate of increased anti-Muslim sentiment, it’s a convenient digression, though. They’ve shifted their base and instead of simply trying to convince people that God is a myth, they’ve embraced the monster narrative of the day. That’s not rational or enlightening or “free thinking” or even intelligent. That’s opportunism. [14]

--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 12:45, 14:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I removed your edit for several reasons, but in part because it incorrectly lumped Chomsky in with the three guys accusing atheists of "islamophobia". Did you listen to the YouTube clip you provided? Not a single mention of Islam, Islamophobia or related bigotry in it. Chomsky was criticizing them for claiming to be secularist yet believing "in the state religion ... we must support the violence and atrocities of our own state, because it's being done for good reasons", which Chomsky considers more dangerous and destructive than religions, for the most part. Your wording made it sound as if he was criticizing someone for being islamophobic, which he did not. (Although Greenwald and Lean might try to misleadingly suggest that he did.)
I also removed your edit, in part, because you are inserting talking-head commentary into a section previously containing almost exclusively information from studies and more reputable sources. Nathan Lean is not a news journalist; he's a writer and editor of Reza Azlan's website — and everything he writes is about Islam, so obviously he would be hostile to critics of religion. Is your reason for wanting to insert this information about several living people based just upon the rants in the above listed articles, or can this information be found in better quality and more reliable sources? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
There is now a secondary source in the form of the following article from the Independet discussing all three (Greenwald was already secondary for Hussain, and Lean for Chomsky) pieces by Lean, Hassain and Greenwald. I'm just going to copy and paste that comment from the Harris Talk page, and add the comment about Chomsky from the Independent piece for context., which involves ME policy and neoconservatives, as documented by Greenwald.

I find these objections to the New Atheists completely warranted,” Greenwald concludes. “In sum, [New Atheism] sprinkles intellectual atheism on top of the standard neocon, right-wing worldview of Muslims.”

Note that I really don't want to hear any more stonewalling and dismissing of sources. Lean is also an academic and published in numerous mainstream media news outlets, and as the Independent article mentions, he is a ME specialist. I hope the following sources meet with your approval.
  1. Atheists Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris face Islamophobia backlash

    Hussain reserved particular ire for Sam Harris, a neuroscientist by trade whose atheist tracts “The End of Faith” and “Letter to a Christian Nation” have made him one of the leading anti-religious polemicists of his age.
    Like Chomsky, who has also been a vocal critic of New Atheism, he blames writers like Harris for using their particularly anti-Islamic brand of rational non-belief to justify American foreign policies over the last decade.

  2. Unholy war: Atheists and the politics of Muslim-baiting
  3. Modernization, Identity and Integration: An Introduction to the Special Issue on Islam in Europe
  4. The New Atheism and Islam
If you don't want your sources dismissed, there is a solution for that. As for Lean being a ME specialist, so am I *shrugs*, and The Independent doesn't say he's an academic. Have you figured out yet what information you want to convey to the readers? Care to propose your text here, with citations and an indication of where in the article it should appear? Will it be with the already existing Harris material? (Oh, and I'll reiterate, Chomsky said absolutely nothing about islamophobia or Islam.) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
No, I haven't, because there are at least two options, and I'd prefer more discussion and input from others before evaluating the approach.
You are right, of course, that in his statements in that video clip Chomsky does not address Islamphobia directly, but his comments should be situated with respect to US policy in the ME; in that regard, Greenwald ties Harris to neocons. I think it is relevant that both Lean and Greenwald mention Chomsky in hte context of discussions about Islamophobia, but I don't intend to belabour the point.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 21:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

New atheists

I have removed the WP:BOLD addition of a section about New atheism by Ubikwit as WP:UNDUE. There are many religious-political groups that have been accused of Islamophobia but they are not mentioned here. The singling out of atheists is UNDUE in this case. I would not be opposed to creating a new subsection to include these groups, but am opposed to only including atheists. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I think that the New Atheists (not atheism in general) have been singled out as a group of intellectuals for promoting a particular ideological position, generally speaking, rather than as a religious group per se. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 23:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Above and beyond, say, Evangelicals? I am not opposed to the content, just feel it's undue. I admit this area is not my forte, but my understanding is that there are other groups that deserve mention. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree that it is somewhat unwieldy content to integrate, which is why I started the thread above, because I originally placed some of it under "Media", but that didn't make sense.
Regarding Evangelicals, I did a google search for books on "Evangelicals, Islamophobia" and looked at the statements[15][16] in the first book--by academic Deepa Kumar. So you are right that there is material there.
I don't know whether intellectuals such as those in the New Atheism movement belong in the same category as conservative Christian clergy, though, even though they are both polemical and the "clash of civilizations" subterfuge would appear to be a shared theme. The New Atheists represent a new stream of backward discourse that is notable, in my opinion, because it is at least partially associated with academia.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 01:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Is this definition notable enough, or just another columnist?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/01/islamophobia-is-not-a-myth/384502/

Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic defines Islamophobia as a fear of mainstream Muslims, entirely separate from opposition to extremism, but applying a fear of extremism to fear of all of them. '''tAD''' (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Recent Reversed Edits I Made

/Users/cadeemlalor/Desktop/Screen Shot 2015-02-27 at 8.48.08 PM.png


I don't know if the screenshot will be visible, but as part of an assignment, I attempted to add factually cited info to the wikipedia page. Less than two hours later, they were deleted. The citations were also formatted correctly, allowing them to be viewed in the citation section and with clickable links that could direct users directly to the newspapers I cited.

Does anyone have any idea why they would be deleted. The below ones are not in WIkipedia's format since I am just pasting them directly from a word document I was working on.

Ibrahim Hooper, the communications director at the Council on American-Islamic Relations attributes the spike in recent anti-Muslim attacks to the Charlie Hedbo attacks, as well as news coverage of "...'radical Islam' being on the news recently."(Daleida) It is likely that Hooper is referring to mainstream news coverage of ISIS. As journalist Julian Burnside states, "Of course Muslims are an easy target: Islamic State (ISIS) is doing a pretty bad PR job for Islam (Burnside).

Burnside, Julian. “The Islamophobia Stirred Up By Abbott and Bolt Is A Bigger Threat To Us Than Terrorism.” The Guardian. The Guardian., 25 February 2015. Web. 27 February 2015.

Daleida, Colin. “Hate Crimes and Hate Speech: Islamophobia’s Rise In The U.S.” Mashable. Mashable., 17 February 2015. Web. 27 February 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmlalor (talk • contribs) 18:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2, 2015

Requested move 21 March 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved, largely based on the current name being the common one. Number 57 16:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


Islamophobia → Anti-Islamic sentiment – As the opening text of the article presents: "Anti-Islamic sentiment or Islamophobia is a term for prejudice against, hatred towards, or fear of the religion of Islam, Muslims, or of ethnic groups perceived to be Muslim. This is prejudice and, in a straight forward way, should be studied, researched and tackled as such.

At essence the current title fundamentally fails WP:AT. The topic area is not a Phobia and, as far as the Venn diagram system of analysis is concerned, the topic of this form of prejudice certainly does not fall within the category of anxiety disorder. Sources are contain a great many topic relevant references to terms such as "against muslims", "against islamic", "anti-Islamic", "anti-Islam" which provide further justification for the move. Clearly issues related to presentation as Islamophobia can be presented in the article but I don't think we should place the cart before the horse.

The topic should be treated in the same way in Wikipedia as in any parallel condition of prejudice such as: Anti-Catholicism, Anti-Christian sentiment, Anti-Hinduism, Anti-Mormonism and other articles that use the same "Anti-..." format common to articles found in Category:Persecution and connected categories. Many other topic areas are currently catered for by the 209 uses in Wikipedia of the "Persecution of ..." article title format.

Also at issue is that "Islamophobia" is a neologism and this is shown in that the article is found both in Category:Words coined in the 1980s and Category:Political neologisms. See also WP:NEOLOGISM.

As mentioned in the article section Islamophobia#Criticism of term and use: Salman Rushdie criticized the coinage of the word 'Islamophobia' saying that it "was an addition to the vocabulary of Humpty Dumpty Newspeak. It took the language of analysis, reason and dispute, and stood it on its head". I see the point and don't think that this is the kind of content that benefits an encyclopaedia.

GregKaye 07:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment there is a wide range of content on the subject found in a scholar search on (Prejudice OR persecution) AND (Islam OR Islamic OR Muslims) but any word beginning "Islamo" only appeared on the results pages once each on the third and sixth pages. A more important issue is to describe the subject so that it can be appropriately assessed and tackled. GregKaye 10:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Seriously?[17][18][19]--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 10:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Certainly. We should present content and descriptions that help readers work through and understand the topic. We need accurate and descriptive content. GregKaye 20:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The term Islamophobia fails in the neutrality domain as well. It is a politically motivated neologism the use of which to describe Anti-Islamic sentiment is contentious. We certainly need an article that covers Anti-Islamic sentiment, and this article for the most part does that, hence it should be named accordingly. The neologism Islamophobia also obviously needs to be discussed in an article, including the debate about its use. The question should be whether it should be covered in a separate article Islamophobia, or just discussed in the article Anti-Islamic sentiment. I think discussing the use of the term in the same article would suffice. Since they have almost identical meaning, there is no point in creating a new article for an alternate name of the same concept. In any case, an article discussing the notion of Anti-Islamic sentiment under the title Islamophobia is in violation of WP:POVTITLE, when we have an equally recognizable neutral alternative. If the article Islamophobia is decided to exist in its own right, it should only describe the term itself and the debate around its use, not the Anti-Islamic sentiment in general.--Cfsenel (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – This is nonsense. Are we going to rename Homophobia? Mincing words over what is and isn't a phobia is unacceptable. This is the common term in RS, just as with Homophobia. The use of the "-phobia" suffix in this manner is a standard part of the English language. I would argue that the proposed term is more of a neologism than the present term, given the wide-range of use that the current title has by comparison. We don't rewrite English usage on Wikipedia. RGloucester — ☎ 05:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
RGloucester There is certainly no mincing on my part over what a phobia. Why do you assert that this is nonsense? Oxford dictionaries define phobia as "An extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something". This does not fit in with a description of the discriminatory practices against any such religious group of people and, if anything, the mincing of words was done by the people who tried to shoehorn this topic area under the title "Islamophobia". Certain people that claim to be Muslims may make unwarranted attacks on Buddhists, Christians, Yazzidis, etc. and we rightly define it as prejudice. Other people make unwarranted attacks on Muslims and we define it as "phobia". This seriously is a nonsense mincing of words. Prejudice should be addressed and tacked as prejudice and hatred should be addressed and tackled as hatred. It is no good pretending that a thing is something that it's not. I quite agree that some content on the topic of Anti-Islamic sentiment may fit into the a subset section covered as Xenophobia but this is just one area of the wider topic covered within Category:Prejudice and discrimination but I do not think it acceptable to have one set of presentation in relation to groups such as Catholics, Christians, Hindus, and Mormons and another type of presentation in relation to Islam. GregKaye 07:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
This article is about an "aversion to Islam and associated things", and fits the OED definition perfectly. That's exactly what this article is about, and that's also what "Anti-Islamic sentiment" would mean if such a phrase were created. I'm sorry if you find the label inappropriate, but that's not something we're supposed to care about here. What matters is use in reliable sources, and the present term dominates the discourse. Your distinction between "phobia" and "prejudice" is mincing words, and is a failure to recognise what "Islamophobia" or "Homophobia" means. Neither of these classical compounds are referring to anxiety disorders, which demonstrates just how far off course you are. RGloucester — ☎ 15:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
RGloucester on the contrary it is the very use of "Islamophobia" that minces words with its Psychobabble puffery. It is the straightforward description of "Anti-Islamic sentiment" that gets straight to the point and outlines the issues as they are. You are justifying an inequality in the treatment of religions in Wikipedia due to utterly unrelated treatment of terms related to sexuality.
True, there are a range of topics in Category:Sexual and gender prejudices in the format: Biphobia, Erotophobia, Homophobia, Lesbophobia and Transphobia and these topics may be seen to have understandable roots in the context of such issues as Sexual maturation disorder and anxieties and fears that may exist in a person's Psychosexual development. There is no natural rationale why a person should have fear in relation to a persons' religion and I don't think that topics of sexuality should be confused with topics on religion.
"Anti-Islamic sentiment" is a straightforward terminology that does not get sidetracked with the unjustified neologism, Psychobabble of "Islamophobia". It's not a phobia. An encyclopaedia should use plain English.
We have articles such as Anti-British sentiment and much of the content is in reaction to things that the people associated with Britain have done and are doing. We have articles such as Anti-Christian sentiment and rightly much of the content is in reaction to things that the people associated with Christianity have done and are doing. The same conditions should apply, without prejudice and bias, equally to all topics in the same category. The Wikipedia setup itself should be without discrimination and prejudice. Issues in similar categories should be handled equally. This is not the place for WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. GregKaye 10:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't the arguments presented be supported by sources?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 11:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
"Phobia" in plain English is neither "psychobabble" nor referring to an anxiety disorder. It has nothing directly to do with "fear" in the clinical sense. It has to do with "aversion". This is a classical compound, one of many similar compounds using the suffix "-phobia". These include xenophobia and homophobia, neither of which refer to "fear" or "anxiety" in the sense you are referring to, but to a strong aversion. In fact, the use of "-phobia" referring to anxiety disorders is more of a neologism than "-phobia" in the sense used here. There is no "systemic bias". We use the terms used in sources. RGloucester — ☎ 17:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
RGloucester , this is not true in the case of Xenophobia. In the article we read: "Xenophobia is the unreasoned fear of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange." How does this apply to Anti-Islamic prejudice? How? How id the presentation of "Islamophobia" not psycho-babble. There were sensible presentations of words that could have given straightforward presentations of this side of an interaction problem and certain people created the unprecedented word for one religion as "Islamophobia". GregKaye 19:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
It isn't "unprecedented". The standard words for those are Anglophobia and Christophobia. They have merely veered from common usage, likely at the behest of editors such as yourself. Russophobia was also recently eliminated, sadly, replaced with a neologism that is both a nonsense and far from common usage. "Phobia" has nothing to do with psychology. I'm sorry that the English language is difficult. RGloucester — ☎ 20:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the term is what is used inventing a new term for it would be counter-intuitive. The suggested term is also very bad since islamophobia is not necessarily directed at Islam, but against Muslims and people of Muslim background. If anything it would be renamed to something like Anti-Muslim racism to describe what it is. // Liftarn (talk) 11:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Prejudice/fear/hatred vs opposition in the context of "anti-Islamic sentiment"

I feel that this article takes many liberties in mixing up terminology with the subjective opinions of individual authors. While the term "Islamophobia" can have a specific origin and thus a specifically conceived meaning, the term "anti-Islamic" is a general construct and it would be difficult to trace its origin to any specific journal or column. It merely means "sentiment of opposition to Islam". It would be awfully single-minded to see that opposition to a specific religion has to be a derivation of fear, hatred or prejudice, as the article currently states in its introducting phrase. One of the linked references (145) even says, "We will not take the term [Islamophobic] for granted by assigning it only one meaning, such as anti-Islamic discourse."

There are examples of better wording in Wikipedia itself. Take, for example, the article Anti-Christian sentiment. It offers the definition, "..an opposition or objection to Christians, the Christian religion, or its practice". Would "anti-Islamic sentiment" be defined, it should follow a similar wording.

On an additional note, Anti-Islam leads to a disambiguation page, suggesting that an anti-Islamic sentiment can be viewed in a wider context than what is offered by this article. Therefore, there's a self-contradiction.

Due to these points, I edited the article to drop the starting reference to "anti-islamic sentiment". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzaeru (talk • contribs) 06:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted your WP:BOLD edit because it does seem to accurately reflect the article. There's lots of discussion of anti-Islam and anti-Muslim in the article. As the article currently stands, I feel that needs to be in the lead sentence. Happy to hear other opinions though. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: The term "anti-Islam" occurs thrice in the article. First occurrence is merely a quote about how the overarching terminology around the subject is ambigious; "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"
Second occurrence is likewise a somewhat ambigious quote; "Jocelyne Cesari, in her study of discrimination against Muslims in Europe,[145] finds that anti-Islamic sentiment is almost impossible to separate from other drivers of discrimination.". In the actual study, the author infact says that, "We will not take the term [Islamophobic] for granted by assigning it only one meaning, such as anti-Islamic discourse."
Third occurrence is using the term as an adjective for an organization; "Paul Jackson, in a critical study of the anti-Islamic English Defence League"
As seen, there is, in fact, no actual explanation for the origins or the use of the term "anti-Islam" itself. Instead, there's even a contradiction with some of the sources and the use of the terminology as the sources often do make a distinction between "Islamophobia" and "anti-Islamism".
Tzaeru (talk) 07:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I count: anti-Muslimist, antimuslimists, anti-Muslim (x15), anti-Arab (x2), anti-Islamism, anti-Muslimness (x2), anti-Islamic (x2). If anything, the lead should be changed to "anti-Muslim" instead of "anti-Islamic". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Anti-Islamic could mean merely opposition to the religion. Anti-Muslim otoh would mean opposition to people who practice Islam. TFD (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: I think that the article and its sources would be in better consistency if the term "anti-Islam" was changed to "anti-Muslim". It seems that the definition of "Islamophobia" in many of the references is closer to discriminating attitudes towards the practitioners and those who can be loosely linked (no matter how falsely and far-fetched) to the practitioners. To quote the article itself: "The concept of Islamophobia as formulated by Runnymede was also criticized by professor Fred Halliday on several levels. He writes that the target of hostility in the modern era is not Islam and its tenets as much as it is Muslims, suggesting that a more accurate term would be "Anti-Muslimism."" and "Diane Frost defines Islamophobia as anti-Muslim feeling and violence based on “race” and/or religion.[47] Islamophobia may also target people who have Muslim names, or have a look that is associated with Muslims.[48]"
To me, when considering what these words translate to, how the sources use and define them and how they would be viewed in the light of similar terms such as "anti-Christianity" and "anti-Judaism", it makes sense to rather use the term "anti-Muslim" than "anti-Islam" in a context that implies phobia/fear/hatred beyond just general opposition to a religion. It seems almost parallel to how "anti-Judaism" and "Antisemitism" are used and can be understood. Tzaeru (talk) 08:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the change of anti-Islamic to anti-Muslim. Thank you for making it! Sorry for delayed reply. I was mostly away from the computer over the past couple days. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Islamophobia in the media

Unwarranted WP:SPLIT with a very limited point of view and WP:RECENTISM. For balance, comprehensive secondary/tertiary sources should be used rather than isolated articles and opinion pieces. --Animalparty-- (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Merge Unnecessary fork, not long enough either to be it's own article. Not really sure why "in the media" should be distinguished from islamophobia anywhere else Abcmaxx (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Merging a page on anti-Muslim xenophobia into a small redirect would not do justice to the importance of this subject. Islamophobia in the media is arguably responsible for much of our military interventionism in the middle east over the past few decades. The amount of media coverage this issue has received would mean that merging would amount to saying "xenophobia in newspapers is unimportant" or "lets obscure the fact that these broadcasters demonize Muslims". 89.242.90.7 (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The Laws of Ishmael--and what has become of them?

I recall reading in a religious text on how and when Hagar and Ishmael were traveling in the path of banishment from the presence of Abraham and Sarah that Ishmael was nearly sexually accosted by some people that they came to meet; the people even offered to purchase Ishmael into sex slavery. This would be a very world changing occurrence/experience in anyone's life. What ever happened to the "Laws of Ishmael," and why do not the Muslims quote nor revere them? I am a bit Islamaphobic that they do not. Gnostics (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Contradictory Lede

1st sentence, paragraph 1 says: Islamophobia (or anti-Muslim sentiment) is a term for prejudice against, hatred towards, or fear of the religion of Islam or Muslims.

Well, which is it. Prejudice, hatred towards and fear of Muslims or Islam. That's 5 different variables. Three different qualities on the part of the person to which it is supposed has the quality of "Islamophobia" and two different objects of those qualities. Muslims are not "Islam" and Islam is not Muslims. The common response by Muslims in the aftermath of a terrorist attack is that the perpetrators of that attack were either not "true" Muslims, or the religion that they work acting in accordance with is not "true" Islam. The Muslims have great difficulty even defining what true and false Islam is and is not, and quite a few of them get killed as a result of that dispute, and yet this phrase glosses over all of that internal dispute and hands us a neatly packaged phrase that has so many different permutations that it is rendered meaningless. Beyond that, the pop-psych-ish connotations of the word lend an undeserved and unearned smack of scientific medical endorsement, as if one can go to their qualified medical health care professional and receive the diagnosis of "Islamophobia" similar to how one can be diagnosed as being afraid of spiders, or enclosed spaces. The Lede should start with an apologetic explanation as to how this meaningless and politically inflammatory phrase is being given an article in the Wikipedia, not as a standalone phrase of encyclopedic merit, but as an artificial and mass-media created phrase used to demonize people for having an opinion that is contrary to what is now politically correct, and mandated.

1st sentence, paragraph 2 says: The causes and characteristics of Islamophobia are still debated. Not according to the 1st sentence in the 1st paragraph. That sentence portrays this fake and made-up word as if it has some official, medically-accepted definition (ignoring it's own insubstantive and overbroad definition), it still says clearly that it is what it is. Then in this 2nd paragraph, it says that it's not.

Well which is it? In general terms I support it's inclusion, but it is dishonest to pretend that there is anything resembling medical/mental health care consensus on this word as an actual "phobia", so that disclaimer should be right up front. And then, moving to the sociological definitions (plural), the article should detail their number and how they may or may not be related. To fear something is not necessarily wrong, bad, immoral or bigoted, and this article should differentiate between the "bad" kind of Islamophobia and the "good" and if it cannot then it should at least make the statement that it cannot, as the word in common practice is a pejorative and it's only purpose is to cow the people the word is used on into submission. It's equivalent in it's use and function as the "n-word", and there should be explicit mention in the article that the word is only used by people in the rhetorical or political sense, and has no purpose and does not exist outside of that realm.Jonny Quick (talk) 07:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article does it suggest that Islamophobia is a "medical/mental health care" issue. I suggest you read the sources cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobia

A phobia is a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational. In the event the phobia cannot be avoided entirely, the sufferer will endure the situation or object with marked distress and significant interference in social or occupational activities.[1]

I assume your position is that Wikipedia is allowed to use language that apply only to medical conditions, but we are to assume they are not applicable as actual medical conditions unless the source explicitly says it's a medical conditions. All language is assumed to be metaphoric, unless concretely stated otherwise? If so, that's ridiculous. If Wikipedia applies your rule to the use of medical terminology to non-medical contexts, then all uses of the word "cancer" are assumed to mean "cancer-like" or "similar to cancer" unless actually explicitly stated to be "cancer" in the medical sense. It's obvious to me that Islamophobia is a made-up, fake and politically rhetorical word, crafted to convey the idea that people that hae "anxiety" about Islam are mentally ill. You know this too, I assume. Do you?Jonny Quick (talk) 00:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, we do not cite Wikipedia as a source, and secondly, if we did, it would surely be evident that the statement at the top of the article you cited was applicable: "This article is about the clinical psychology. For other uses, see Phobia (disambiguation)". As for your opinions concerning what is or isn't 'obvious', they are of no relevance here, since Wikipedia policy is that articles are based on published reliable sources. And furthermore, this talk page is not a forum for debate - unless you are proposing specific changes to the article, compliant with Wikipedia policy, I can see no point in continuing this discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I think you are pretending to not understand the point. I never claimed to want to use Wikipedia as a "source". My point is (obviously) that everyone knows what a "phobia" is, and so do you. You are simply pretending to not know, as a tactical maneuver to avoid addressing the substantive and documented problems with this phrase, and this article. You are taking your ridiculous notion that there's nothing wrong with including the word "phobia" into this made-up, fake and politically crafted word without a disclaimer, this article itself undermines the entire legitimacy of the phrase in the body, while the Lede merely says that it's "criticized", when in fact it should be "criticized" for being completely meaningless. Which doesn't mean that there shouldn't be an article about the meaningless and manipulative phrase intended to demonize as an epithet those that have substantive issues with the religion of Islam, it's just that the encyclopedia should be honest about the dishonest and manipulative nature of the phrase, as well as the editors that pretend to not understand any of the "criticisms" about the phrase as a means of maintaining it's biased and dishonest description in the encyclopedia. Shall I give you an alternative example of what this article is doing with the word "Islamophobe" except to substitute a much easier-to-understand pejorative, such as the "n-word"? The article could assert the legitimacy of the word, water-down all the criticisms of that word, and then go on to tell us all the qualities that make up the people to whom the "n-word" applies, and right here in the encyclopedia. That's the natural results of your understanding of "how things should be", and it's wrong in both cases. And I suspect the reason why you choose to disengage is because you know your position is untenable and you will lose in any serious discussion between more experienced editors.Jonny Quick (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Classic etymological fallacy. Just because the word has the root "phobia" does not mean it's a disorder. This is clearly just your opinion on the issue and not shared by reliable sources. Please stop using this page as a forum. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Read the archives. This has already been discussed. The false, fabricated, and dishonest nature of this word has already been discussed previously and the article was nominated for deletion. It's very existence is WEAK, and it takes a weak existence and tries to legitimize a dishonest epithet that only serves to manipulate honest conversations into having a desired outcome by demonizing an opposing viewpoint as having a quasi-mental health condition. Now stop being a truthophobe and a progressophobe and help improve the quality of this article.Jonny Quick (talk) 05:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
You appear to be having reading difficulties yourself. The article has certainly been nominated for deletion - three times, with a clear and unambiguous consensus to keep each time. Take your tedious repetitive soapboxing elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Islamophobia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Deleted Photo of "American Protester"

Caption claimed the "American Protester" "self-identified" as being Islamophobic. We (the Encyclopedia) can't say that. He could be holding someone else's sign. Or possibly he was mocking the term itself, saying "This stupid and meaningless label you use, well I'M IT. That's not "self-identifying" as having the pseudo-psychological disease, that's mocking and illustrating the ridiculous nature of those entities (SPLA, the left in general, liberals, democrats, etc...) that use the term. You know, those groups on the "Leftist Map".Jonny Quick (talk) 08:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Caption changed to reflect this. // Liftarn (talk)
Signs don't "say" things. The text on the sign is self-evident. The caption should not try to interpret the meaning of the sign. The whole point of the sign, and of free speech in general, is to allow an individual to decide for themselves what things like signs mean, instead of having their meaning force-fed into their minds by large massive government bureaucracies (like Wikipedia). The whole purpose of the sign is for it's message to speak for itself, and not have that message dumbed-down by intellectually inferior people who are afraid of what might happen if they stop trying to control what other people think. Which is the whole reason why we're talking about this in an article about Islam.Jonny Quick (talk) 03:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
This isn't an article about Islam. And Wikipedia isn't a government bureaucracy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
That's nice, but you didn't say anything at all about the caption or the image of the protestor or the sign. Isn't there some wikipedia graphic that shows the various "levels" of a discussion or debate, where the lower you go the farther away from the point you get? You should post that image here, and then look at it. What's your position on the substance of the discussion? I say find an appropriate caption for the image that doesn't presume to interpret what it means, as any attempt to do so is obvious bias, and for some reason you seem to be afraid to engage on the central point of that discussion. I get the general notion (for some reason) that you are a more senior editor and that it's "not your first rodeo", and if that is true, then why are you pretending to miss the point here?Jonny Quick (talk) 03:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
If you want to discuss the image, do so - and stop soapboxing about 'freedom of speech', 'large massive government bureaucracies' (what would a small massive one look like?) and 'intellectually inferior people' - evidently defined by you as anyone who doesn't conform to your narrow-minded, conspiracy-laden, racist [20] mindset. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Religious test for public office

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/424671/islam-ben-carson-krauthammer

Is this a new twist that is notable enough for coverage here? Hcobb (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Addition of the British Initiative to involve Muslim Communities after the London bombings

Added how some British Scholars believed that there is institutionalized Islamophobia since the British authorities asked the Muslim communities to be watchful and help the authorities prevent another terror attack. Michael Lavalette attests that many British scholars saw this act as Institutionalized Islamophobia since the authorities focused on Muslims in particular. Furthermore, having the Muslims take part in this initiative to prevent further attacks allowed them to display their love for Britain and negate the perceived threat from radicals and extremists from their own communities as such, they were likely to be the only group who could harm Britain. This was added to highlight the fact that certain steps taken by the government or the local authorities supplement the general public's possible overall distrust and concerns about a particular group or people. Syal01 (talk) 11:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Islamophobia as an actual Industry?

Recently came across a reference while researching Islamophobia that asserted that there is an actual industry created by those who consider themselves inside the right spectrum of American politics. the author states that however it is not an actual buyer seller industry but more of progressing the "agenda" type. This industry sells its agenda to the public through the collaboration between TV networks and political forces that share or become partners because of shared ideologies. This was added to display how vastly incorporated Islamophobia has become in media and how it is achieved. Syal01 (talk) 11:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources or it can't go into the article. // Liftarn (talk)

Petrocurrency

Since 1971 OPEC colluded and selling crude oil exclusively in US$ aka Petrocurrency, resulting in friction between Islam and the West; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Oil_Balance.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4thaugust1932 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Islamophobia in Bollywood

//There are growing instances of Islamophobia in Hindi cinema, or Bollywood, in films such as Aamir (2008), New York (2009) and My Name is Khan (2010), which corresponds to a growing anti-minorities sentiment that followed the resurgence of the Hindu right.//

For real? These films are the very opposite of Islamophobic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.189.22.31 (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Sources? // Liftarn (talk)
I presume the OP has been taking some strong drugs. I havent seen the first two movies, but the third one listed stars a Muslim actor playing a Muslim with the core message that all Muslims are not terrorists. The movie's most famous line is "My name is Khan, and I am not a terrorist". If that is Islamophobia, then I doubt there is any movie on earth that isnt Islamophobia. 101.63.212.87 (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Erik Bleichs research on the use and application of Islamophobia.

Added some conclusive work from Erik Bleich to denote how some scholars have direct definitions of Islamophobia and how some refrain from exactly describing it. Furthermore, how the parallel concepts of homophobia and xenophobia can assist in understanding Islamophobia. Syal01 (talk) 11:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing parallel here. Speaking against religious bigotry is not bigotry, and speaking against religious hate is not hate. Islam is culturally and ideologically intolerant of homosexuals and espouses xenophobia in its religious documents. "Islamophobia" is a weaponized idea used to suppress legitimate criticism of a religion that preaches hatred against non-members. Hitchens was 100% correct when he described Islam as a form of totalitarianism that seeks to turn humanity into slaves. All reasonable and good people everywhere must reject it and the newspeak of "Islamophobia" that it uses to defend its crimes against the human spirit. 107.72.97.61 (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Reminder that this is not a forum to discuss the topic of Islamophobia or your personal beliefs thereof. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

European Islamophobia Report (EIR)

Whole day long I'm trying to maintain edit concerning EIR, substantiated with proper referencing to reliable sources.

This latest report was presented at European Union parliament on May 6. this year, and was product of work of several dozen prominent intellectuals and academician, researchers and NGO activists from all over Europe. It's here to stay, as relevant, reliable and legitimate entry - if it's relevant and legitimate for European Parliament it must be for English Wikipedia - unless someone can wondrously prove otherwise, which I doubt, however I understand massive resistance not only to my edit, but to entire article, all the time.--Santasa99 (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why ppl are referring it as npov, but it is much too large of coverage. I don't think we need it in the lead or have a very large quote. Just a paragraph about its definitions is fine. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Then propose alternative, make it shorter, don't remove it, for Christ sake !--Santasa99 (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
And no, not people, just two passers-by, one of which appears to be troll with multiple warnings on his talk page, on which he never responded.--Santasa99 (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Look, it's such important issue that, actually, makes one of the most important entries in this article. It's report presented in front of European Parliament, for Christ sake, what's more relevant and important then that ?!
Actually, it deserves stand-alone article of its own. I mean, organization deserves its own article. They assemble very large number of intellectuals and academicians from around EU and Europe. They are not some fringe organizations, they are involved with EU government, which, I suppose, can't be more relevant place to work with, on any issue, and on human rights in particular.
This Report is and will be at the pinnacle in the fight against Islamophobia through EU governmental apparatus, and to say it's a minor thing is belittling, to say the least.--Santasa99 (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Chill. There's no deadline here and stop casting aspersions. This needs discussion and consensus at this point, so we're gonna need some other voices here.
The issue I have that there's WP:UNDUE weight on this one topic, bordering on WP:COATRACK. This topic is about Islamophobia, not the EIR. We can and should mention their opinion, but not in 5000 bits worth of it. For reference, this is the edit in question. I say keep the external link and make a European Islamophobia Report section, but not with the tons of fluff it had. Just something like the following:
In 2016, the European Islamophobia Report (EIR) presented the "European Islamophobia Report 2015" at European Parliament which analyzes the "trends in the spread of Islamophobia" in 25 European states in 2015.[4] The EIR considers anti-Muslim racism.[5] The conclude that criticism of Muslims or Islam is not necessarily Islamophobic, but that Islamophobia is the dominant group scapegoating and excluding Muslims for the sake of power.[5]
There's my 2 cents. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Richardson, Robin (December 2009). ""Islamophobia or anti-muslim racism – or what?"" (PDF). (119 KB), Insted website. Accessed December 30, 2011.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference EoRE215 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Allen2010pp5-6 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Feroz, Emran (4 May 2016). "Europe's First Report on Islamophobia Shows the Dangerous Climate Muslims Live In". AlterNet. Retrieved 13 May 2016.
  5. ^ a b "Definition - About European Islamophobia Report (EIR)" (.html). ©2016 European Islamophobia. European Parlament. May 3, 2016. Retrieved 12 May 2016. When talking about Islamophobia, we mean anti-Muslim racism. As Anti-Semitism Studies has shown, the etymological components of a word do not necessarily point to its complete meaning, nor how it is used. Such is also the case with Islamophobia Studies. Islamophobia has become a well known term used in academia as much as in the public sphere. Criticism of Muslims or of the Islamic religion is not necessarily Islamophobic. Islamophobia is about a dominant group of people aiming at seizing, stabilizing and widening their power by means of defining a scapegoat – real or invented – and excluding this scapegoat from the resources/rights/definition of a constructed 'we'. Islamophobia operates by constructing a static 'Muslim' identity, which is attributed in negative terms and generalized for all Muslims. At the same time, Islamophobic images are fluid and vary in different contexts, because Islamophobia tells us more about the Islamophobe than it tells us about the Muslims/Islam.

"I say keep the external link and make a European Islamophobia Report section, but not with the tons of fluff it had. Just something like the following:..."

OK, but lets discuss it further tomorrow, and attune edit with most relevant information.--Santasa99 (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


I don't see how this is any separate from inclusion of a big section on the Runnymede Trust report. IMO it might be appropriate to condense both these reports down into the definition section or debate about the definition section. I don't think any single report should have a whole section under Etymology. --Tow (talk) 02:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd be fine with combining things. I think this is a great source we can use to bolster the definition of Islamophobia vis-a-vis racism and Islam. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it warrants separate subsection under Etymology or new section where we can provide information on relevant organizations, not for report itself. It should exist such (sub)section which will give condense explanation on what/who the source/organization is, why is relevant, and then separate paragraph under "Reports" (sub)section, which will give reader summarized info on their research and/or report itself.

I already explained my position, but for editor "Tow" I will reiterate it: if the EIR report is good enough for EU parliament, as quite relevant, reliable, and legitimate, then it must be relevant for wikipedia article on Islamophobia.

I can see how huge is the section which tries to provide counterarguments for the phenomenon of Islamophobia itself, yet one meet such a challenge when tries to provide entry on truly important organization and its research, which happened to be the most important act authored and presented at European Union institutions since 2006 and EUMC report "Muslims in the European Union: Discrimination and Islamophobia".

So, don't mind if I have my doubts on some editors motives and reasons. Article is already poorly conceived, and informations are really scarce, not to mention constantly challenged by editors who want it removed completely.

Extent of the problem of Islamophobia, and especially actions in combating phenomenon are underrepresented in the article - for pity's sake, this article completely omitted some of the most important documents and act of countering Islamophobia in Europe, such as main EU institutions like OSCE's "Guidelines for Educators on Countering Intolerance and Discrimination against Muslims", the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights research and reports, etc.

However, I don't mean that article should be buried with informations on every single organization and every single report, but these major governmental organizations, as well as those non-governmental engaged with EU institution (or other western states, respectively), should have been mentioned, briefly explained, and their most relevant and actual research and reports noted.--Santasa99 (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the constant pushing of the obscene comparison to antisemitism, which is highly politically charged. It's especially offensive to European Jews who are "Islamophobic" about muslim antisemitism. --Monochrome_Monitor 16:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

It was obviously a conscious decision to mention three otherwise unnotable people, two politicians and one obscure proffessor of islamic studies, for their "Muslims are the new Jews" crap. Comparisons to religious antisemitism are one thing, but the comparisons to racial antisemitism and nazism are fringe, limited to the far-left (who have their own problem with Jews). --Monochrome_Monitor 16:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, everything that you mentioned is your personal problem, which doesn't influence editing English Wikipedia. You can file complaint to your national ombudsman, near place where you live, if you feel threatened in any obvious way.

As far as edit is concerned, I can draw a conclusion that, except been reverted, none of the editors, apart from "EvergreenFir", have suggested alternative. I will make an entry with respect to "EvergreenFir" proposition in the next 24 hours.--Santasa99 (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits (May 31)

So Xenophrenic has made a blanket revert here with a misleading edit summary where he/she disingenuously inserted uncited weasel words such as "widely criticized", and adding his/her POV: "should be considered problematic". Other changes include modifying "Although the term is widely recognized and used" into "Although the Runnymede Trust has been successful in making the term widely recognized".

Clearly, Xenophrenic, (Personal attack removed) has a problem with this established term. Xenophrenic, you may want to explain your concerns here instead of editing disingenuously? Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Al-Andalusi. I'd like to request that you not personally attack your fellow editors. Thanks.
To address your three concerns: (1) My edit isn't a "blanket revert" (whatever that is), perhaps you should look more closely at it, and the edit summary is fine. (2) The "widely criticized" wording has a citation at the end of the sentence. Please read the many criticisms therein, and explain to me why you feel the wording is not supported, or is in any way more "weasely" than the other dozen instances of that wording in the article. (3) The "should be considered problematic" wording is right from the cited source (see: "should not be considered unproblematic"). I'm interested in how you concluded that was my POV, and not that of the cited source. (4) As for adding "the Runnymede Trust" to the first sentence of that paragraph, that, too, was from the cited source. So please explain here what your concern is with that wording. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Undoing multiple edits of an editor in one edit without explanation is blanket reverting. Adding a bit more changes to the mix and not writing "undo/revert" in the edit summary does not change the fact that a series of edits were reverted precisely because "you don't like it". Not to mention, you were using an edit summary that does not accurately describe the changes to the content. The wording "widely criticized" is not backed by the cited reference (and I pointed out in the very beginning that it is uncited). The usage "should be considered problematic" is highly POV. Do not insert your opinions here. All academic sources indicate that "Islamophobia" is an established term and now a reality. Academic debate revolves around understandings of the term and ways to define it better so as to help address the issue. Certainly, this fruitful discussion takes precedence over the views of characters such as Ed Husain, Rushdie, Hitchens and others who maintain that hatred against Muslims does not exist. By moving the academic discussion down to the bottom of the section, and placing the views of right-wing nuts at the top, the section is no longer quite balanced. Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Just throwing in my 2¢.
  • Both versions under criticism are bad. Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, "many right wing" should be removed, and replaced with the individuals who are doing the rejecting. Similarly, per WP:TERRORIST, the term "right wing" should not be used period, unless in the specific case that the people described as such are cited, and the person describing them as such is also cited.
  • "Should be considered problematic" is POV par excellence and should be removed unless it is directly attributed to a source (i.e., It should be quoted and not said in WP's voice. This doesn't mean said in WP's voice and then quoted in a footnote 99% of people are not going to read.)
  • I'm not going to take the time to read into the other page and a half of changes, which leads to the following::
    • Don't do large reversions unless it is general copy/editing or something similar unlikely to be controversial. Make peace meal revisions that can be individually justified in edit summaries.
    • Don't do them on contentious articles at all. Instead seek consensus on talk.
  • Calling someone a right winger is a personal attack. Stop it. Talk about edits not editors. Similarly, don't use a section header to talk about a person, when the issue is with an edit. TimothyJosephWood 21:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Calling someone right-wing isn't an insult, it's more of a dismissal, that shouldn't be a dismissal. It's like calling someone a feminist in anti-feminist circles, a very-low brow tactic. CatGrass (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Get real. When a tobacco farmer from Kentucky calls you a communist, they're not talking about the nuances of Marxism. When someone disagrees with your edit and calls you a right winger on talk, they're not trying to have an enlightened political discussion. TimothyJosephWood 10:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Islamophobia

Note that Category:Islamophobia is being considered for deletion: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 July 12#Category:Islamophobia. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

This article is fundamentally wrong

JG Estiot (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

This article is fundamentally wrong and should be suspended, deleted or reviewed as it exaggerates the definition of Islamophobia taken from the Oxford Dictionary. The actual definition is "Dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force". This article does not accept the dictionary definition of the term Islamophobia but instead seeks to redefine it by embellishing and distorting it for the purpose of making Islamophobia a negative and unacceptable state of human belief. It is perfectly legitimate to dislike Islam as it is an archaic religion that breaches most of today's human rights. Rather than acknowledge Islamophobia as a legitimate state for any human being, this article paints the term negatively by lumping it with racism, something that has nothing to do with the dislike of Islam because Islam is not a race. There are White, Asian, Black and mixed-race people around the world who are Muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgestiot (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say. We use multiple reliable sources instead of just one. Several scholars of relevant fields of study have stated that islamophobia is a form or racism or is related to racism. If your feelings are hurt because of that ~perhaps you should do something else. // Liftarn (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Probable inaccuracy lacking (any) citation (reliable or otherwise); vague claims

"the 2016 presidential election, during which Republican nominee Donald Trump proposed banning the entrance into the country of all non-Muslim citizens."

That (specifically "non-") appears to be contrary to the facts, and provides no citation for its claim. Moreover, "citizens" is vague (citizens of what?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:100:4472:3837:7AE7:D1FF:FE82:C27B (talk) 16:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. I fixed it. // Liftarn (talk) 08:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamophobia/Archive_17&oldid=1136827799"